CHAP. I. The certainty of our Religi­on not to be gotten by Spe­culation, but by Practice.

THe certainty of salvation in the judgement of those who most earnestly contend for it (even with more earnestness then dis­cretion) may be desired, but cannot be at­tained without the certainty of Election; and the chief proof of our Election, is from our perseverance in Religion: Thus the Apostle proves that God had not cast off his people whom he did foreknow, from this An­swer of his to Eliah, I have reserved to my [Page 2] self seven thousand men which have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, that is to say, who have not been guilty of Apostacie in this general defection of the Jews, of which thou complainest, but do still persist and persevere in the true Religion: If God would have his prophets know he had Ele­cted the Israelites, because they had not fallen from his worship, shall we think we can be otherwise assured of our Election then by making sure of our Religion? Therefore whosoever hath bowed the knee unto Baal, cannot rightly conclude that God hath Elected him, but rather that God will cast him away, because he hath first cast God away: And will ye know what is this Baal, let Beza tell ye, Baal Pa­tronum significat, vel eum in cujus aliquis est ‘potestate, Baal signifieth a Lord and Master that hath power over any man’; so then a Religion that pleaseth my Master on earth, but not my Father in Heaven, is a bowing unto Baal. He that will be Gods servant must acknowledge no other Master but onely God, both for the Rule and the Pra­ctice of his Godliness and this man alone will be sure not to fall away from Gods ser­vice: wherefore the best assurance we can [Page 3] have that God will not forsake us, is, that we do not forsake him; for none can be as­sured of his goodness, but they that conti­nue in it, his own Spirit thus attesting, But towards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, Rom. 11. 22. For Religion is as the way, sal­vation is as the journeys end, and a man must first make sure of his way, before he can make sure of his journeys end; I am the way, the truth, & the life, saith our blessed Saviour, (S. Joh. 14. 6.) And he gives this reason of that saying, No man cometh to the Father but by me: As Christ is the way to his Fa­ther, so the true Religion is the way to Christ; we must all first come to Christ before we can come to God, and we cannot come to Christ, but by the true Christian Religion, for though Religion in gene­ral is a knitting of the soul to God, yet the Christian Religion (which we must look to be saved by) is a knitting of the soul unto God in and through our Saviour Christ.

For since the great distance made betwixt God and man by sin, we cannot possibly be re-united unto him but by a Mediatour; therefore the Apostle sets this down as the ground of our Religion, There is one God, [Page 4] and one Mediatour between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2. 5. To allow of more Mediatours then of this one, whether Mediatours of Intercession or of Redemption (if the distinction were it self allowable) we dare not, because the word allows but of one; we need not, because that one is all-suffici­ent in himself without more company, and because he is all-sufficient in himself he can­not, he will not admit of any other compa­nion. And sure we are that no other Medi­atour but he that hath united God to man, is able to unite man to God; and therefore no other Mediatour but onely he, can be in­trinsecally necessary to Religion, whose work it is to unite man to God; and if no other be intrinsecally necessary we must look upon all others as meerly additional, that is to say, as mediatours of mans not of Gods making; for so saith the Apostle, There is one God and one Mediatour between God and man: It is the property of Religion to unite created spirits to this one God, and so the good Angels may be said to be religi­ous who are united to God, though they were never separated from him; but it is the property of our Christian Religion so to unite our spirits to this one God, as to be­leeve [Page 5] and confess this one Mediatour between God and man, the onely authour of our uni­on, because our sins had indeed made an actual separation betwixt us and our God.

This Mediatour took our nature upon him, that he might take our sin upon him; and he took our sin upon him that he might discharge us who were beleeving sin­ners from the guilt of sin by imputative righteousness in our justification, and deli­ver us who were repenting sinners (for we cannot be true beleevers, unless we be true penitents) from the dominion of sin by in­herent righteousness in our sanctification: so that the onely way for us to make sure of our salvation is to make sure of our Religion; and the onely way to make sure of our Re­ligion is to make sure of Christ; and the onely way to make sure of Christ is to make sure of a Christian conversation: For as An­tioch was in after ages called [...]. the city of God, because therein men were first called Christians; and was accounted one of the Patriarchal Sees, [...] (as saith Theophylact) not because it had been the seat of S. Peter, but because it had been the seat of Christ, wherein he first was as it were enthronized and established in [Page 6] his kingdom (For the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch, Act. 11. 26.) so is it with thy soul nothing but the profession and exercise of Christianity, can make it the City of God, the Spouse of Christ, or the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Do as Corne­lius did (Act. 10. 2.) Be devout and cha­ritable, give much alms to the people, and pray to God alway, be continually exerci­sing thy Charity, and thy Piety (two such virtues, as this age may be afraid to name, because 'tis not ashamed to banish) And thy memorial shall be with God, thy com­fort with thy self, and thy communication with an Angel: But because in many things we offend all, and they in most who do least acknowledge their offences in any thing, therefore Divines commonly re­duce all Christian conversation to these two heads of Faith and Repentance; a lively Faith in our Saviours righteousness, and a hearty Repentance because of our own un­righteousness.

Faith and Repentance are called Foun­dations, Heb. 6. 1. Surely because they bring us to him, who is the onely foundation both of our Religion and our souls, our blessed Saviour, into whose life we are engaffed by [Page 7] Faith, and into whose death we are inserted by Repentance; for we must be planted together in the likeness of his death, no less then in the likeness of his Resurrection, Rom. 6. 5. Coalitio cum Christo & in vitâ, & in morte nunquam possit divelli, saith Beza. Our Union with Christ is no less in regard of his death then of his life; wherefore he that is truly in Christ is in him, to his death by re­pentance, as well as to his life by Faith; for there is no being ingraffed into Christ, with­out being planted into his death, as well as into his life: Thus Faith and Repentance are foundations, and yet the Apostles words remain undoubtedly true, other foundation can no man lay, then that is layed; which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 2. 11. Other foundation then Christ can no man lay, no nor an­gel neither, nay if either seek to lay any o­ther, Let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. Other foundation can no man lay, therefore must every man lay himself, his soul upon this foundation; which that he may do, he must have repentance from dead works, and faith towards God; he must first repent, that is, he must see and confess all his own works to be dead works, and himself also to be a dead man, dead in trespasses and sins, [Page 8] Eph. 2. 1. his own conscience being the witness, and Gods law the judge; and yet this is but one part of true repentance, the other is still behinde, he must also renounce his works, and he must forsake himself, be­cause both are dead, that is the second part of repentance.

And when this foundation of repentance is well laid, then next comes faith, which follows repentance in mans going to God, though it be before it in his knowing him. Fides sequitur poenitentiam quantum ad ten­dentiam, licèt antecedat quantum ad cognitio­nem, saith Bonaventure. Faith follows repen­tance in the motion, though she go before it in the instruction or direction of the soul. For when once we see our works all dead, and our selves under the power and dominion of death, what can we do but fall into despair, and consequently into perdition, unless we fix the eye of our soul upon the eternal Son of God, made man for our redemption, looking unto Jesus the authour and finisher of our faith, Heb. 12. 2. and as looking unto him, so also resting in him, and relying on him; for if we do not so, we shew that we have a false opinion concerning our Saviour Christ, as if he had not come into the world [Page 9] to save sinners, as is averred, 1 Tim. 1. 15. and what is false in the understanding must needs be sinfull in the affection, which is the demonstration by which Aquinas proves desperation to be a most grievous sin, Quia est falsa opinio de Deo, & quod est falsum in intellectu, est malum in appetitu. Because it is a false opinion of God, and what is errour in the understanding is sin in the will.

Thus is Christ the onely foundation of our Religion; and faith and repentance (and in them other virtues) are called foun­dations because they joyn the soul to him, which cannot be properly said of any man whatsoever, nor of all the congregations of men in the world, not of S. Peter himself, and much less of his successours, and if it be said, cannot be justified by any good Lo­gick, or good Divinity, much less by that distinction of Fundamentum primarium and secundarium, of a primary and a secondary foundation, which distinguisheth a numeri­cal identity from it self, with too much sub­tilty and too little truth, calling that a se­condary foundation which is indeed a piece of the building; and therefore they that teach, Post Christum fundamentum est Pe­trus, & nisi per Petrum non pervenitur ad [Page 10] Christum, (Bellarm. in praefat. in libros de summo Pontifice) do mistake a pillar for the foundation: to be a pillar in Gods house is a more glorious title then is given to any an­gel, and carries with it a burden too heavy for any man, who hath not the extraordi­nary assistance of the Spirit of God; and therefore the Holy Ghost thinks it enough to call S. Peter a pillar, leaves it for Christ alone to be the foundation; James, Cephas, (that is Peter) and John who seemed to be pillars, Gal. 2. 9. Cephas was a pillar, and Iames and Iohn were no less pillars then Ce­phas or Peter, and consequently their succes­sours no less pillars then his successours, but neither of them was a foundation properly so called; vide Field, pag. 478, 479. that is too high an attribute for any man, since he cannot work upon the soul by his own power, and virtue to unite that immedi­ately unto Christ; for he is the onely foun­dation that sustains the whole building; and faith and repentance are called foundations by S. Paul, onely as settling and establishing us in Christ, which is not possible for any man or angel to do, who can work onely in­strumentally towards these, by instructing the understanding, and exciting the will, [Page 11] but cannot do the work of them, and there­fore cannot so much as reductively, or instru­mentally be called foundations. And this is agreeable with Bonaventure's distinction, (in lib. 4. sent. dist. 22. qu. 1.) Fundamentum dicitur dupliciter; uno modo, locus in quo aedi­ficium stabilitur; alio modo, dicitur funda­mentum illud, secundùm quod res locatur in suo sustentaculo. A thing may be called a foundation in two respects, either that it self sustains the building, & so Christ is the one­ly foundation, or that it causeth us to be su­stained by the foundation, and that is done three ways, either by removing the impedi­ments that keep us from it, or by placing and settling us on it, or by confirming and strengthening us in it.

In the first consideration, Repentance is a foundation, because it removes away our sins that keep us from Christ; in the second consideration Faith is a foundation, because it placeth & fixeth our souls on Christ, that is to say, A faith working by love, whence the Apostle saith, That we are rooted and grounded in Christ through love (as well as through faith) Eph. 3. 17. for a faith that is without love is a faith of devils, which will nor invite Christ to come to us, much [Page 12] less to dwell with us, and least of all to dwell in us: The Solifidian as he will have his faith to dwell without love, so he must be contented himself to dwell without Christ. And lastly, in the third considerati­on, the Word and sacraments may be called foundations because they are the means to confirm and strengthen us in Christ:

All these may in several respects be called Foundations; for all these have an immedi­ate influence upon the soul of man by reason of the grace which accompanies them, which influence no man possibly can have, and therefore no man justly can claim: But all these which are called Foundations have (as I said) an immediate influence upon our souls, to make us rise with Christ (our Founda­tion) and seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, Col. 3. 1, 2. for as all the material building tendeth downwards, because the founda­tion is below, so all the spiritual building tendeth upwards (saith the same Seraphi­cal Doctour) because the Foundation there­of is above, even on the right hand of the Ma­jesty on high, Heb. 1. 3. Wherefore we have need of a strong repentance, to raise us up from earth that we may detest, and forsake [Page 13] our own unrighteousness, and we have need of a strong faith to raise us up to heaven, that we may lay hold on our Saviours righ­teousness, not onely in our confidences, but also in our consciences; not onely in our ap­plications, but also in our affections; not one­ly by our persuasion, but also by our imi­tation:

A thing that is easily said, but not so ea­sily done; for he that will make sure of a true faith must make sure of beleeving (at least in the preparation of his minde) all the truths that God hath revealed, as well as all the mercies that God hath promised, or Christ hath purchased: And he that will make sure of a true repentance must make sure of bewailing (at least in the preparation of his minde and the desire of his soul) all those sins which he hath committed; and of so bewailing the sins he hath committed, as not wilfully to commit the sins he hath be­wailed: he that hath made sure of this faith, and of this repentance, hath taken the right way to make sure of his religion, to serve God not our of custom, but out of con­science; not of hypocrisie, but out of inte­grity; not onely in the communion of men, but also in the communion of saints; and [Page 14] this man alone can come to make sure of his salvation. We take now a contrary course, every man makes sure of his salvation, but no man makes sure of his Religion; is not Christ Jesus the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever? as it is said, Heb. 13. 8. how is it then that we are not the same Christians yesterday, and to day, and for ever? and yet we talk of nothing more then of going to Christ, whiles we do nothing less then draw neer him. Had we looked after Christ in Christs own Church, we should certainly have found him; and had we once found him, we should not so willingly have left him: Had we seen Christ in the exercise of our Christian Religion, we would cer­tainly have communicated with him; and had we once communicated with him, we would not for the advantages or disadvanta­ges of this world, have so easily forsaken his communion.

It is to be feared, that either we profes­sed our Christianity as hypocrites, and so were not sure of our Religion; or that we are fallen from our profession as apostates, and cannot make sure of our salvation. I speak this out of the love of truth, and their souls who are my brethren, and therefore [Page 15] hope it will offend none that either love the truth or the brotherhood, and must not be affrighted if it do offend many of those that manifestly oppose the truth, and immortal­ly injure their brethren, by turning them out of the road of salvation, to look after some new by-paths, no less doubtfull then perilous; for if St. Paul did wish himself accursed from Christ, for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. 9. 3. then none that takes upon him St. Pauls calling, but is bound to have so much of St. Pauls zeal, as to think the salvation of souls his greatest blessing, and to make it his chief­est aim; and he that doth the one, will cer­tainly do the other, and consequently not regard the causless displeasure of many, if he may take the right course to save but one; and without doubt this doctrine doth immediately tend to the salvation of all, which adviseth men to take heed of hypo­crisie in professing Religion, and of aposta­cy in renouncing it, or of schisme in rece­ding from it; for schisme is a particular apostacy, even as a apostacy is a general schisme: For the onely way to be assured of our future communion with God in happi­ness, is to be assured of our present com­munion [Page 16] with God in holiness; and we can­not be assured of communion with the Fa­ther of lights, unless we walk as children of the light. It is in effect St. Iohns argumen­tation, 1 Epist. c. 1. v. 5, 6, 7. He that saith he hath communion with God, must walk in the light; But, all we that profess our selves Christians, do say we have communion with God, in and by our Saviour Christ, Therefore, we must all walk in the light. We that do profess our selves Christians, as we do say that we have communion or fel­lowship one with another; so we do much more say that we have communion with God, (not inviting men to our civil, but to our Christian communion) and unless we make good that saying, we cannot make good our own Christian profession; for he that hath communion with Christ, hath communion with the Son of God, and he that hath the Son hath the Father also. 1 Joh. 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father, (therefore Turks and In­fidels, and Antitrinitarians, do not worship the same God with us Orthodox Christians) but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also, (therefore Orthodox Christians in having Christ, are sure they have com­munion [Page 17] with God. For although these lat­ter words, He that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also, be not in the Greek originals, either of Greek or Latine Church, (for which cause they are by our Interpre­ters inserted in different characters from the text, who did not desire to follow Beza, where Beza did not follow the Church) yet they are in the Vulgar Latine, and are owned by Clemens of Alexandria, in his comment upon this Epistle, (as it is recor­ded in Bibliothecâ Patrum) and also by the Syrus Interpres; and indeed are in effect owned by the Spirit of God himself, for that they are virtually included in the former words, by the rule of Contrariety or Oppo­sition: for by the same reason that who­soever denieth the Son hath not the Fa­ther, it is most undoubtedly true, that who­soever confesseth the Son hath the Father: therefore, all our labour must be that we may have the Son; for in having him we are sure to have the Father. And this is the grand doctrine of all the New Testament, this is the main Gospel-truth that the Apo­stles maintained against all sorts of gainsay­ers in their time, and they have left us their writings, that we should also maintain it un­to [Page 18] the worlds end, That the Christian Reli­gion is the only way to eternal salvation.

This their doctrine was strongly opposed in their days by four sorts of men. 1. By the Gentiles not yet converted, for they still maintained their heathenisme. 2. By the Jews not yet converted, for they still main­tained their Judaisme. 3. By the Jews not fully converted, for they still maintain­ed a mixture of Judaisme with Christianity; they mingled together the Jewish and the Christian Religion. 4. By the Christians converted, but withal partly perverted; for they brought in untrue professions, and un­godly practises into their Christianity; they corrupted and depraved the Christian Re­ligion, and the Apostles were accordingly very carefull, as to confute these heresies, so also to confirm and establish the contra­ry truth; whence it is, that all their wri­tings are wholly taken up, either in those confutations, or in this confirmation: For though the truth it felf is but one, yet the controversies concerning it were no less then four; and the Apostles thought it necessary not only to establish the truth in it self, that it might appear truth, but also to establish it in our hearts, that it might ap­pear [Page 19] truth to us, that is, truth without con­troversie, not only a mystery of Godliness, but also a manifest and confessed mystery, 1. Tim. 3. 16. Wherefore it will not be amiss for us to see the state of the several Contro­versies, that so we may the more clearly see, the more firmly embrace, the more con­stantly profess the truth.

The state of the first Controversie (which the Apostles had with the Gentiles,) consi­sted of these two questions. First, whether there were a life everlasting to be looked for after this life? Secondly, whether that life everlasting were to be obtained by con­tinuing in the idolatry of the heathen, or by turning to the Religion of the Christi­ans? And in both these questions, the truth of the Christian Religion is declared, or rather demonstrated against the heathenish superstition, out of the principles of natu­ral reason; and that truth summ'd up by St. Paul, 1 Thes. 1. 9, 10. How ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which deli­vered us from the wrath to come. There is a re­surrection from the dead, therefore the soul dies not with the body, but lives eternally; [Page 20] and this eternal life is not to be gotten by serving Idols, but by serving the living and true God; and there is no serving him, but by waiting for his Son from heaven: Thus was the Christian Religion justified against Heathenisme, which afforded the first Con­troversie.

The state of the second Controversie which the Apostles had with the Jews not converted, consisted but of this one Questi­on, Whether eternal life and salvation was to be obtained by the Jewish or by the Christian Religion? And we finde the A­postles still proving out of the Old Testa­ment (the Ground of the Jews Religion, and so acknowledged by themselves with­out the least doubt or contradiction) that salvation was not to be had by Moses, but by Christ; so S. Peter in his several Sermons, Acts 2. and 3. and 4. Christus Messias, that Christ was the Messias, the Saviour of the world, is the subject of them all. This he proves, Acts 2. for that he had given the holy Ghost, and was risen from the dead; and both his proofs are out of the Old Te­stament, which they acknowledged the rule of their Religion; one out of the Pro­phet Ioel, the other out of the Prophet Da­vid. [Page 21] The same Doctrine he proves again, Act. 3. by a miracle, restoring a lame man to his feet, in the name of Jesus Christ; but because the Jews were so wedded to Moses, that no miracle was like to divorce them from his doctrine, but such as himself al­lowed, therefore S. Peter doth likewise al­ledge Moses his own testimony, v. 22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A pro­phet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say un­to you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that fol­low after, as many as have spoken have like­wise foretold of these dayes. As if he had said, I teach you no new doctrine concerning the Messias, but such as Moses, and all the Pro­phets have taught you before; Moses him­self bid you hearken to him no longer, then till God should raise up that new Prophet unto you in his stead, and I hope you will hearken to Moses, if you will not hearken to me; here is a miracle done in the name of Iesus of Nazareth, which shews he came from God, here is the testimony of your [Page 22] own Moses, that he should come, and that you should hearken unto him: you must deny your own senses if you deny the miracle; you must deny your own faith which you so zealously profess, if you deny Moses; so that you cannot deny Christ Je­sus to be the Messias, if you will but stick to your own senses, and to your own Faith.

And this manner of arguing was very ne­cessary, to convince the Jews who were wholly addicted and devoted unto Moses, and therefore not to be drawn from him to Christ, but by the cords of his own testi­mony. For we see S. Iohn 9. 29, 30. That the Pharisees excommunicated the blinde man for alledging a single miracle to ad­vance the authority of Christ; they pleade for Moses, v. 29. We know that God spake un­to Moses; and against Christ, As for this fellow we know not whence he is: the blinde man answers their plea for Moses, in an­swering their plea against Christ, vers. 30. Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath open­ed mine eyes. and again, vers. 32. Since the world began it was not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blinde; If [Page 23] this man were not of God he could do nothing: As if he had said, you prove that Moses was from God by the miracles he wrought; and I say, here is a greater Miracle then any of his working; therefore I am as sure of Gods speaking to this man, and be­ing with him, as you can be that God spake to Moses, and was with him: yet we see that this miracle being alledged without Moses did not convert them, and that makes S. Peter here alledge Moses himself for their conversion; and the allegation is so clear, that no eye, but may see it, so undeniable, that no mouth, but must confess it, nor can any Jew now beleeve Moses against Christ, but he must first beleeve Moses against himself.

The like doctrine is again preached by the same Apostle in his next Sermon, Act. 4. 10, 11, 12. where he confidently avouch­eth the lame man to have been healed by the name of Jesus, and that by the same Jesus onely they must expect to be eter­nally saved, and this he proves unto them by the testimony of the prophet David. The like is also the doctrine of S. Stephen's Sermon, Act. 7. the sum whereof is briefly this, that Abraham and the Patriarchs wor­shipped [Page 24] God rightly before Moses was born, or the Tabernacle and Temple were built, and therefore the foundation of the true Religion is not to be sought for from Moses, nor the exercise of it from the Temple; Moses himself confessing, that his Rites and Ceremonies were to last but for a time, even till Christ should come, who was that Prophet, whom the Lord would have them so to hear, as never to expect any other af­ter him.

The like is also the doctrine of S. Paul's Sermon, Act. 13. where he proveth, That Jesus is the Christ, and that all the Prophe­sies of the Old Testament lead to his death and resurrection: For that by him alone, all that beleeve are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Therefore the Iews must embrace the Christian Religion, or be still under an imperfect and insufficient Religion: In a word, this is not onely the doctrine of S. Paul, but also of all the other Apostles, in their several Epistles, of which this is the Argument, That man is not justified by the works of the Law, but onely by Faith in Iesus Christ; or (which is all one) that neither justification nor salvation may be hoped for [Page 25] by the observation of the Iewish, but onely of the Christian Religion: Accordingly the subject matter of all their Epistles con­sists of these two Heads; First, of Promises that concern eternal life, Secondly, of Pre­cepts, as the necessary conditions to obtain those Promises, which Promises and Pre­cepts are as it were the two integral parts of the whole Gospel: And thus was the Chri­stian Religion justified against Iudaisme, which afforded the second Controversie, and was the more largely to be discussed, and the more fully to be decided, that we see­ing the undoubted grounds of our Christian Religion, may the more earnestly endea­vour to be good Christians, and by that means help to convert the Iews.

The state of the third Controversie (which the Apostles had with the Iews not fully converted) consisted of this one Question; Whether the Christian Religion alone, without any mixture of Iudaisme, was the true way to Salvation? And they all agreed that it it was, and that the Law of Moses was but as a School-master to bring us unto Christ. And therefore though the Apostles did at first permit and ordain some practices of Iu­daisme, yet was it onely for that time by [Page 26] way of Condescention to gain the Iew, not to last for ever by way of Constitution to ob­lige the Christian: Therefore that decree of the Apostles, Act. 15. 29. is looked upon by some Divines as meerly local, binding onely the Church of Antioch; for S. Paul shews it did not binde the Church of Co­rinth in the meats offered unto Idols, and therefore not in bloud, nor in things strang­led by the same analogy, 1 Cor. 8. 4. But it is looked upon by all Divines as meerly temporal, binding no Church any longer then was necessary for the gaining of the Iews. Thus excellently Aquinas (1. 2^ae qu 103. art. 4. ad 3.) Ad literam ista sunt pro­hibita, non ad observandum ceremonias legis, sed ad hoc, quod possit coalescere Unio Gentili­um & Iudaeorum insimul habitantium, Iudaeis enim propter antiquam consuetudinem, suffo­catum & sanguis erant abominabilia, Comesti autem immolatorum simulachris poterat in Iu­daeis suspicionem ingenerare circa Gentiles, quod scilicet redituri erant ad Idololatriam; & ideo ista fuerunt prohibita pro tempore illo, in quo de novo oportebat convenire in unum Gentiles & Iudaeos; procedente autem tempo­re, cessante causâ cessat effectus, manifestâ do­ctrinae Evangelicae veritate, in quâ Dominu [...] [Page 27] docet quòd nihil quod per os intrat coinquinat hominem, Mat. 15. & nihil est rejiciendum quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur, 1 Tim. 4. Fornicatio autem prohibetur specialiter, quia Gentiles non reputabant eam esse pecca­tum. ‘The Apostles forbad things strang­led, and bloud, and meats offered to Idols, not to oblige the Gentiles to the obser­vation of the Ceremonial Law, but to bring the Jews and Gentiles (now living together) into one peaceable Commu­nion; that the Gentile might not of­fend the Jew by eating bloud and things strangled, which had been forbidden by their Law; nor the Jew suspect the Gen­tile (as relapsing to his former Idola­try) if he should eat things offered unto Idols; therefore those three things were forbidden for that time onely, till there might be a right understanding, and a firm agreement betwixt the Jew and the Gen­tile; but in process of time when the Go­spel came to be fully published, the cause ceasing the effect likewise ceased with it; for then both Jew and Gentile were taught, that nothing that entreth into the mouth defileth the man, S. Mat. 15. 11. and that every creature of God is good, and [Page 28] nothing to be refused if it be received with thanks-giving, 1 Tim. 4. 4. But as con­cerning fornication, that was especially for­bidden meerly in relation to the Gen­tiles, because though it were a sin in it self, yet was it not so in their opinion:’ Thus the Angelical Doctor determines concerning this decree of the Apostles; and to shew it was the undoubted judge­ment of his Church (which in some things clearly sways him against the strength of his own reasons) he again in effect renews the same determination: Fornicatio illic connu­meratur, non quia habeat eandem rationem culpae cum aliis, sed quia poter at esse similiter causa dissidii, quia apud Gentiles Fornicatio simplex non reputabatur illicita propter cor­ruptionem naturalis rationis; Iudaei autem ex Lege divinâ instructi eam illicitam reputa­bant: Alia verò quae ibi ponuntur Iudaei abo­minabantur propter consuetudinem legalis con­servationis, unde Apostolica Gentilibus inter­dixerunt, non quasi secundum se illicita, sed quasi Iudaeis abominabilia, 22. qu. 154. art. 2. resp. ad 1. ‘Fornication is there reckoned up with those other things, not that it had as little sin as they, but because it might have produced as great a cause of conten­tion; [Page 29] for the Gentiles through the cor­ruption of their natural reason accounted fornication as no sin, which the Jews knew to be a sin, having their reasons en­lightned and rectified by the Law of God; and as for the other things they were forbidden; not as unlawful or abo­minable in themselves, but only as abomi­nable to the Iews:’ And indeed we cannot put fornication into the same bed-role of in­differency with the rest, if we do but consi­der, that the Apostles intent was not to give to those new beleevers a rule of life, but a rule of peace; not directions for their conversation, but for their communion; not to set down what was fit for their action, but what was fit for their Union; not what was conducible in it self, but what was conduci­ble to their present agreement; in the first respect, their Decree had been a very imper­fect catalogue of things unlawfull, a very imperfect rule of abstinence; but in the se­cond respect, we have great reason to sup­pose, that neither as a catalogue, nor as a rule it needed any greater perfection: And this was the judgement of the Latine Church concerning this matter, though the Greek Church in the Trullane Council (can. 67.) [Page 30] seem to be of another opinion, and forbid all manner of eating of bloud, but the rea­son is evident, those of that council looked upon this decree as a command of the text, and not as a condescention of the Apostles, which doubtless was a mistake; the like to which had been in the Asiatick Church be­fore concerning Easter; whence in process of time sprang up the heresie of the Quar­tadecimans; for whereas S. Iohn the Apo­stle and some other Apostolical men had out of compliance with the Iews in Asia, whose Church was mainly fixed in those parts, kept the fourteenth day of the first moneth (according to the law of Moses) for their Pass-over; Polycrates afterwards, and the Clergy of his Churches taking that for an example or president, which was one­ly a compliance or condescention, would have perswaded the whole Christian Church to keep [...] not [...] (as Sca­liger cals it) to keep a Pass-over rather in remembrance of Christs Passion, which was upon a week day, then in Remembrance of his Resurrection, which was upon a Sun­day; the Reason was, the Churches of Asia had mistaken S. Iohns condescention to the Iews, for an approbation to them­selves; [Page 31] as if what he allowed onely to the Iews, he had also approved (and by conse­quent established) for the Christians: The like mistake seems here to have been a­mongst the Fathers in Trullo concerning eating of bloud; whereas the Greek Church had otherwise a right judgement concerning Apostolical condescention, which is, not to look upon it as a dogmatical sanction; for so Theodoret in his argument upon the Epi­stle to the Galatians, tels us, that some Iews had perswaded the Galatians to stick to the Iewish ceremonies of Sabbaths, new moons, and circumcision, saying, they should not follow S. Paul who was of yesterday, but ra­ther S. Peter, and S. Iames, and S. Iohn which had been with Christ, and did not forbid Circumcision, nor those other Ceremo­nies; whereupon Theodoret thus declares his judgement, or rather the judgement of his Church (for he was neither heretical, nor schismatical) [...]. And true it was that those Apo­stles did not then forbid Circumcision, be­cause they thought it requisite for that time [Page 32] to condescend unto the Iews; but these men concealing the cause laid hold of the practise, and endeavoured by that means to turn the Condescention into a Constitution. The like was also the judgement of Oecu­menius, on Act. 3. 1. where he tels us that S. Peter and S. Iohn went up to the Temple at the hour of Prayer, [...], &c. not that they did care to Iudaïze, but that they might condescend to gain the Iews: so that we may safely conclude notwithstanding the Canon of Trullo, as well as the practice of the Asiatick Churches; that the judge­ment of the Catholick Church was alwaies thus from the beginning, and must be to the end; so that the Apostles did many things by way of Condescention to the Iews, which they would not have drawn to the counte­nancing of Iudaisine, for that they intend­ed no Galemofry of Religion, no mixture of Iudaisme and Christianity, but an utter a­bolition of Iudaisme, and an absolute esta­blishment of Christianity, though the abo­lition of Iudaisme was to be brought to pass not in an instant but by degrees; Ut cum honore mater Synagoga sepeliretur, as S. Au­gustine speaks, that their mother Syna­gogue [Page 33] might be laid in her grave with ho­nour, and without offence: And thus was the Christian Religion justified against the mixture of Judaisme, which afforded the third Controversie.

The state of the fourth Controversie, (which che Apostles had with the Christi­ans converted, but withal partly perverted) consisted of as many questions as there were present errours against the truth, or abuses against the purity of Christian Religion; the errous were confuted by the Apostles, and the abuses were rectified. And thus was the Christian Religion justified against Heresie, and against Profaneness; First it was justified against all other false profes­ssions, and afterwards against its own false professours: For it had been absurd to perswade men to a Religion that was not able to justifie it self against all Religions and men whatsoever; because a Religion that cannot justifie it self, is much less able to justifie those that profess it; & a Religion that cannot justifie, cannot save, & a Religi­on that cannot save, is a Religion but in word onely, not in power; for what man would ever torment his body, were it not to save his soul? Who would ever forsake the [Page 34] pleasures of the flesh, were it not to enjoy the comforts of the Spirit? therefore must the Christian Religion be looked on as the way to salvation, that men may be carefull to walk in it, and as the onely way, that men may be fearfull to walk out of it: For what they have of Religion that they have of salvation, (whether really or phan­tastically) and what they do want of the one that they do also want of the other: Accordingly S. Peter adviseth us all to make our calling and Election sure, 2 Pet. 1. 10. For though our Election be firm in it self (& we may bless God it is so, especially since we are fallen under such strong delusions as might deceive if it were possible even the very Elect) I say, though our Election be firm in it self, as being grounded on Gods immu­table purpose; yet is it daily more and more to be confirmed in us, by making more and more sure of our calling, that is to say, of our calling to righteousness, or of our Religion, in daily bringing forth more and more the fruits of righteousness; for we cannot make sure of Glory but by making sure of Grace, nor can we be sure of Grace but from the fruits and effects of Grace, which are the remission of sins, and the purgation from sin [Page 35] according to that excellent gloss of Oecu­menius upon the Apostles benediction to the Hebrews in his last words of that Epistle, Grace be with you all, Amen. [...]: Grace be with you, that is, The Remission of sins and the purgation from sin be with you; or, to speak more to our present custome and capacity, the blessings of Justification and of Sanctification be with you; for Justification is the Remission of sins, and Sanctification is the purgation from sin, and the work of Grace is to ex­pel sin by justification, and by sanctificati­on; to expel sin in its guiltiness, or obli­gation to punishment, by justification; and to expel sin in its pollution, or obligation to more sinfulness, by sanctification; for sin hath a two fold obligation upon the sinner; it obligeth him to punishment by its guilti­ness, it obligeth him to more sins by its pol­lution; and the work of Grace is to oppose sin in both these respects, and the means whereby Grace effecteth this great work is the Christian Religion, which is truly and properly our calling as we are Christians, and callethus to the forgiveness of our sins by faith in Christ, there is the justification; [Page 36] and calleth us to the amendment of our sinfull lives by repentance from dead works, there is thesanctification; Wherefore to make sure of our Calling, is to make sure of Grace; and to make sure of Grace, is to to make sure of our Christian Religion, which alone produceth the works of Grace; and how we may do this, the same Authour teacheth us in the same place; [...]. If we do not wrong Gods goodness by sinning, or by neglecting, that is, by Commission or by Omission; by sinning against the light of Grace, or by neglecting the power and means of Grace; which two have without doubt occasioned all the grand mistakes and miscarriages of several Christian Churches in point of Religion: They either sin by Commission against the light of Grace, or by Omission against the power and means of Grace; and at last come to make a new Religion, by turning their old sins into new Tenents. This is [...]: To sin against God, and to neglect him; to sin a­gainst him by Commissions, and to neglect him by Omissions; to do either, is to wrong his grace and goodness, much more to do both; which, as it may serve for a [Page 37] good caveat to all Christian Churches in general, so also to every Christian man in particular; for our Commissions are the great impediments of our justification, be­cause though the sons of men will, yet the Son of God will not justifie a sinner that continueth in his sins; our Omissions are the great impediments of our sanctification, because though the spirit of errour may call him a Saint, yet the Spirit of Grace will not sanctifie him or make a Saint of that sinner, who neglects and contemns the means of Grace; and these Commissions and those Omissions commonly go both together in the loss of Religion, but the Omissions go generally before the Commissions; As S. Paul saith of the Apostate Christians in his time, Rom. 1. 21. and the same doctrine will hold true of all Apostates to the worlds end. That when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankfull, (there's their Omissions.) But became vain in their imaginations, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into an image, &c. (There's their Commissions.) And upon these follows the loss of their Religion, ver. 28. As they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate minde: 'tis [Page 38] first [...], they did not approve, then [...] they were given over to such a minde as could not approve that which came from God; this is a reprobate minde, a minde void of judgement, an un­discerning understanding, which is sure to have sin with it, and damnation after it; for so saith the prophet, Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, Isa. 5. 19. here is truly the reprobate minde in its sin, for it calls evil good, and good evil, and in its pu­nishment for it is under a curse, Wo unto them. So again, Prov. 17. 15. He that justi­fieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just (whether Person, or Thing, or Acti­on, for the adjunct is put without any one of these particular subjects, to shew it be­longs alike to all) even they both are an abo­mination to the Lord; Their sin is in their own false judgement, their punishment in Gods true judgement, who judgeth them as [...], a thing profane, unclean, abomi­nable, not to be endured by God or man, Let me then pray that I may cordially and sincerely study not onely the knowledge, but also, and much rather, the practise and exercise of the true Christian Religion, lest the neglect of the practise and exercise [Page 39] bring me to the dislike and contempt of my Religion, and I begin to finde fault with my Church when I should finde fault with my self (all men being apt to condemn that which they do neglect, that they may justi­fie their own neglects) for to finde fault with the true and laudable exercise of Reli­gion is to call good evil, which was all we did at first, and then it will be just with God to deliver me over to so much Irreligion as to call evil good, which is that we do now.

CHAP. 2.

REligion may be sure in it self, and yet may not be sure to us. It is in it self the certainty of all certainties, yet it is of­ten in too too many men (the more is the pity if against their will, the more is the shame if with their will) one of the greatest uncertainties in the world. For [Page 40] there may be a certainty of the object or of the thing, when there is little or no certain­ty of the subject, or of the person; that is in plain English, the certainty may be great, yet the assurance little or none at all; and so it is in this case; for Religion hath without doubt the greatest certainty of the object, or or of the thing, because that wholly de­pends upon Gods immutabilitie or un­changeableness, there is the greatest cer­tainty; but it hath ofttimes the least certaintie of the subject, or of the per­son, because of mans great hypocrisie and greater inconstancy, there is the least assurance; for this is the common bane of Religion, that men do profess it hypocriti­cally, and therefore cannot profess it con­stantly; they seek a Religion that will ra­ther save their estates, then save their souls, and consequently will more settle their con­ditions then their consciences: thus they are first hypocrites, and then they cannot stick to be apostates; for there is in hypo­crisie Simulatio sanctitatis & defectus san­ctitatis (saith Aquinas) first the pretence of Religion, and then also the defect or want of it; for what is meerly in pretence, is certainly not in being; and Religion could [Page 41] not be pretended were it not wanting; one­ly in hypocrites the pretence appears first, but at last also the want or defect of godli­ness; so that were their Religion unfeign­ed it would not be inconstant; but because they have hypocrisie so far as to profess religion out of custome, they cannot have constancy so far as to persist in their profession out of conscience: we have the pattern of both kinds of professours real and formal, in the first chapter of Ruth: The one in Ruth, the other in Orpah. For the pleasure, the delight of this world saith un­to us all as Naomi said to her two daugh­ters in law; Go and return each to her mothers house; and the formal professours do as Or­pah did, leave their mother, the Church (the onely true Naomi, because she is Gods de­light) when she is in distress; Orpah non Re­ligione, sed humanitate socrum secuta est, saith Iunius, Orphah followed her mother, not out of Religion, but meerly out of common courtesie, therefore she turns back again; so do all those that are of any Christian Church, rather for good manners, then for a good perswasion; rather for custom, then for conscience; but the real pro­fessours, who have followed Religion [Page 42] out of conscience, and therefore have their consciences established in Religion, are ready to say to their Church as Ruth said to her mother Naomi, Whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God; As if she had said, I will never leave the land of Israel, nor the communion of the God Israel; for so Aben Ezra glosseth her words. Thus she resolves verse 16. and she strengtheneth her self in this resolution, verse 18. for so it is in the Hebrew, she strengthened her self; which we fitly trans­late she was stedfastly minded; for they who most strengthen themselves in good reso­lutions, are most stedfastly minded, and will not be guilty of unstedfastness; and thus do all they strengthen themselves, who have not onely a speculative, but also an affective knowledge of Religion, who do not onely know what they do in the worship of God, but also love what they know. They taste and see that the Lord is good, Ps. 34. 8. and by that spiritual gust know themselves to be in the way of blessedness, and consequently will not be diverted or turned out of that way.

Thus we see there may be a certainty of Religion without an assurance thereof; but [Page 43] if there be so, the fault is our own that we are Hypocrites, or formal professours, look­ing after the outside rather then the inside of Religion; that is, looking more after the form then after the power of godliness; for the form of godliness may happily direct us to a conformity with men (which is like to be as changeable as their humours) but it is the power of godliness alone that directs us to a conformitie with Christ, and makes us as it were unchangeable, conforming us with our Saviour, and confirming us in our selves, that is to say, in our own consciences: wherefore from the form we must go to the power, and that will make us pass from con­formity to conscience, not so as to loose the conformity, but so as to keep the consci­ence; for which cause the school Divines do teach that divinity is not onely a specula­tive science, in teaching the knowledge of God, there's for the conscience; but also a practical science in commanding and order­ing the actions of men, there's for the con­formity: and as it is a science, so it hath in it self that certainty which belongs to scien­ces; nay it hath a greater certainty, saith A­lensis, then any other science whatsoever; for asking this question An modus sciendi in [Page 44] Theologiâ sit certior quàm in aliis scientiis, whether the manner of knowing divine truths, be more certain in Divinity, then the manner of knowing natural truths is in other sciences, he answers it is more certain, and he gives these three admirable reasons for his answer. 1. Quia certior est modus sci­endi per inspirationem quàm per humanam rationem, because the way of knowing by divine inspiration, is much more certain then the way of humane ratiocination, or collection, since the one is subject to errour, the other not: and all divine truths are made known to us by inspiration, as appears, 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by in­spiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; I may not take any doctrine for an instruction in righteousness, which I cannot prove was first taught by inspiration of God, and if it be taught of God it may be found in the Scripture, which is Gods word. 2^o. Certius est quod scitur testimonio Spiritûs, quàm quod testimonio creaturarum. That is more certain which is known by the te­stimony of Gods Spirit then of the creature: But all that we know in Divinity is known by the testimony of Gods Spirit, as saith [Page 45] S. Peter. 2 Pet. 1. 21. For the prophesie came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost: in Divinity we appeal to the un­doubted testimony of God the holy Ghost, and can say, Veni Creator, whereas in all o­ther sciences we can go no higher then the testimony of the creatures. 3^o. Quia certius est quod per modum gustûs, quàm quod per modum visûs. A man is more sure of that which he discerns by his taste, then of that which he discerns onely by his sight: for what he discerns by his sight, he knows onely speculatively, and perchance to his great discontent, but what he discerns by his taste, he knows also experimentally, and if the thing be good not without great delight: and from these premises he proceeds to this dogmatical conclusion or determination; Est certitudo speculationis, & est certitudo ex­perientiae: vel est certitudo secundùm intel­lectum & secundùm affectum; vel quoad ho­minem spiritualem, & quoad hominem ani­malem. Dico ergò quòd modus Theologicus est certior certitudine experientiae, & quoad affe­ctum, quia est per modum gustûs (Psal. 118. Quàm dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua) quamvis non certior quoad speculationem in­tellectûs, [Page 46] quae est per modum visûs; item cer­tior est homini spirituali, quamvis incertior animali. 1 Cor. 2. Animalis homo non per­cipit ea quae Spiritûs Dei sunt) ‘There is a certainty of speculation, and there is a certainty of experience: there is a certainty that proceeds from the understanding, & there is a certainty that proceeds from the will and affections. Lastly, there is a cer­tainty of the spiritual man, and there is a certainty of the natural man: I answer then that the manner of knowing Theological or Divine truths is more certain then the manner of knowing any other truths, if we look upon the certainty of experience which proceedeth from the will and affe­ctions, because that certainty is by way of tasting. (Hence the Psalmist saith, How sweet are thy words unto my taste, yea sweeter then honey to my mouth) al­though it be less certain, if we look upon the certainty of evidence, which proceed­eth from the understanding, because that certainty is onely by way of seeing. And none of us all is so quick-sighted in spiri­tual as in natural things: and hence it is that this certainty of divine truths which is very great in the spiritual man is little [Page 47] or none at all in the natural man;’ Because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2. 14. The sum of all is this, The certainty that is to be had of the Christian Religion, is greater then the certainty that is to be had of other truths; but it must be in a subject rightly qualified; that is, First, in a man of holy affections, who lives not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, else his profaneness will beguile him: Secondly, In a man of holy resolutions, that desires not to satisfie his curiosity, but his conscience; not to provide for his temporal, but for his spiritual interest, else his hypo­crisie will deceive him: Thirdly, in a man of holy intentions, that steers not his course to heaven by the Cynosure of his own rea­son, and much less of his own humours, but is wholly guided by Gods authority (for none but Gods authority ought to sway in Gods cause) else his perversness will de­fraud him of his certainty: for those men that are guilty of hypocrisie, come short of it; those that are guilty of profaneness, go be­side it; those that are guilty of perversness, go against it: for as it is concerning Reli­gion [Page 48] it self, so is it also concerning the cer­tainty that accompanies it; the profane per­son goes beside it; the hypocrite comes short of it, the perverse person goes against it; onely the sincere, meek, good man ob­tains it; he that is sincere without hy­pocrisie, meek without perversness, good and honest without profaneness and de­bauchery.

The same seed is sown in several grounds, but from some the sower hath not so much as his seed again, from other he hath great increase: The spiritual seed is the word of God, the rule of Religion; And as for this word some of it falls by the way-side, that is, among profane and vicious persons, such as are in the high-way of perdition, where it is troden under foot, and the fowls of the air (irregular and ex­travagant fancies and desires) devour it; some of it falls upon a Rock, where it can have no root nor moisture, (for onely the mere out-side is earth, the rest is all stone) that is, among hypocrites and dissemblers who hear the word with joy, and for a time beleeve, but in time of temptation fall away: for temporary beleevers, as they beleeve with the times, so also they beleeve but for [Page 49] a time, and soon fall away from their be­lief: Lastly, and some of it falls among thorns, that is, among perverse and refra­ctory men (for such are called briers and thorns, Ezek. 2. 6.) men of a wilfull Reli­gion, and therefore in truth men of no Religion, since Religion depends not up­on mans but upon Gods will; and here the word must needs be choaked; for a man that gives himself to be governed by his own will cannot possibly submit himself to Gods will, or at least, not for Gods sake, but onely for his own sake; and a Religion that is not for Gods sake is certainly not of Gods making; and consequently though it may be of a great growth (as we find by sad experience) yet it cannot be of a long continuance, for herein Gamaliel spake as the oracle of God, if this counsel, or this work be of men it will come to nought, Acts 5. 38. If the counsel be to serve our own ends, the work is so to, and then both counsel and work are of men, of perverse and refractory men; and being of men it will come to nought, and God forbid but so it should: All this while here is a certainty of nothing, but onely of the good seed. It is most sure, the seed which God sowes is good, and yet [Page 50] neither hypocrites nor profane, nor perverse men are fully assured of its goodness, be­cause they have but an assurance of speculati­on, not of affection; such an assurance as swims onely in the brain, to convince them by way of information; not such an assurance as sinks down into the heart, to convert them by way of reformation, making them out of love with their own errours; & much less by way of confirmation, making them really in love with Gods truth: for this latter assurance belongs onely to those who follow St Peters advice, laying aside all ma­lice or wickedness, [...], that is against the profane persons, and all guile and hypocrisies, that is against the hypocrites; and envies and evil speakings, that is against the per­verse; as new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that they may grow thereby, 1 S. Pet. 2. 1, 2. not grow rich, or powerfull, or honorable in this world; but grow pious, and religious, and devout, prepared for a better world; for such men only receive that hea­venly seed in good ground, which is like to bring forth encrease; such men only receive the word in an honest and a good heart, [...], in a heart that is ho­nest and free from hypocrisie; in a heart [Page 51] that is good and free from wickedness, that will not let the man be profane; in a heart that is good and free from refractoriness, that will not let the man be perverse; for even Aristotle's, [...], requires a man to be good in all these three respects; with­out hypocrisie in his intention, without profaneness in his action, without perverse­ness in his affection; and therefore surely Christs school will not admit of any other scholar, and if any other scholar be ad­mitted, he will be but little benefitted by his learning; for he that doth not thus re­ceive the word of grace, hath not yet tasted that the Lord is gracious, 1 S. Pet. 2. 3.

Nor is it requisite here to insist upon the impediment of ignorance amongst us, who say we live in the sun-shine of the Gospel, and that our eyes are open to see more then all our fathers before us, or all our neigh­bours about us, or all our brethren with us; for in truth we cannot justly complain of ig­norance, whom God hath so effectually called to the knowledge of his truth, and faith in him, by placing us in a Church, which is able to protest with St. Paul (and indeed every true Christian Church, being the grand Apostle of its nation, ought to [Page 52] make good this Apostolical protestation) Ye know how I kept back nothing that was pro­fitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly testifying repentance to­wards God, and faith toward our Lord Iesus Christ, Acts 20. 21, 22. I say we cannot justly complain of ignorance, who have our eyes open to see the truth; but we may and must complain of our detestable un­thankfulness, which hath filled us with hypocrisie, and profaneness, and perversness; but especially with perversness; for whiles our eyes are open, our hearts are shut; shut faster then the iron gate, that lead unto the city, was shut against St Peter, because we generally defie those whom God hath cal­led his Angels, Apoc. 1. 20. for whiles they did go along with us, and we with them, the iron gate which leadeth unto the City of God, the true Jerusalem, did open to us of its own accord, (like Acts 12. 10.) we had no difficulty in Religion, which we were not able to conquer. But now we have gotten very many difficulties, which we shall never be able to subdue, till we have conquered that which caused them all, our own per­versness.

Indeed we have gotten almost as many [Page 53] Religions as men, and yet as many difficul­ties as Religions; for having turned our Jerusalem into Babel, God hath justly di­vided our languages, and which yet is far worse, hath also divided our minds; that since we would not all speak the same thing, we should not be perfectly joyned together in the same minde, and in the same judgement, 1 Cor. 1. 10. so far are we now from enjoying Gods blessing, because we have been far from obeying his command; for the com­mand hath not the weaker obligation, be­cause it is uttered by way of benediction, but ought rather to have the stronger influence, Rom. 15. 5, 6. Now the God of all patience and consolation, grant you to be like minded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus, that ye may with one minde, and one mouth, glorifie God, even the Father of our Lord Je­sus Christ. We would not glorifie God with one mouth, when we were thereunto called; and now we cannot glorifie him with one minde, that it is more then evident, whiles we have pretended to thrust out the Papist, we have let in the Atheist, and that in the most dangerous kind of Atheism, if we be not overcome by it, but the most damnable if we be, the perverse Atheisme: [Page 54] For it is a misery which may be lamented, but cannot be denied, that though all the world cannot make one and the same per­son more then one man, yet he may make himself no less then three Atheists; an Atheist in his Understanding, by not know­ing God; an Atheist in his Will and Affe­ctions, by not loving and regarding him; and an Atheist in his Life and Conversation, by not honouring and obeying him. The first you may call the ignorant or blind A­theist, the second the perverse, the third the profane Atheist; the heathen had most of the ignorant, but the Christian hath most of the perverse, and of the pro­fane Atheist; and if you will ask which of these two is the worser, there is no Divine but must be unwilling to answer you, because he cannot be willing to coun­tenance either; but yet you may take this observation in part of payment, till you have a fuller answer to discharge the rec­koning, That our blessed Saviour whiles he lived on the earth, converted many Pub­licans and sinners, which were in the num­ber of profane, but very few Pharisees and hypocrites which were in the number of perverse Atheists.

CHAP. 3.

THere are two substantial parts of the Christian Religion; The first is con­versant in the knowledge; The second in the worship of God in Christ, so that the substance of the Christian Religion is no­thing else but that doctrine and practise, which is made up of these two integral parts, the knowledge, and the worship of God in Christ; the one uniting our under­standing to the first truth, the other uniting our will to the chiefest good, both together perfecting the communion of the soul with God; so that of these two parts consists het substance of Religion: But because Religion in the general doctrine of it may onely fill the head with empty speculations, all tend­ing to fancy and to curiosity, & not the heart with holy affections and heavenly desires, which may tend to the sanctification of our sinfull souls here, and the salvation of our [Page 56] sanctified souls hereafter: It is most neces­sary that all Christians make sure of a pro­fession of Religion agreeable to their do­ctrine, and of a practise agreeable to their profession; and these two will compleat the exercise of Religion, which is no other but the application, or accommodation of the substance thereof to Time, Place, and Person; that is to say, the profession of the know­ledge, and the practise of the worship of God.

And this difference we may observe be­tween the substance and the exercise of Reli­gion. First the substance of Religion is all immediately from God, but the exercise of Religion in many things depends upon the authority of man: Sacrificare est de lege natu­rae, determinatio sacrificiorum ex institutione, saith Aquinas, that men should offer sacrifice to God, is of the law of nature; but that they should offer these kinds of sacrifices, or in these places, or in these set times, or after this set form and manner, depends wholly upon institution, either Divine as among the Jews, or Humane as among the Gentiles.

But we may not shoot at Rovers in so narrow a compass; the law of nature is not sufficient to teach us the substance of Reli­gion, but we must learn that from the law of God.

[Page 57] For though it be the dictate of natural reason, that men should exhibit worship to God as their first beginning and last end, yet the true determinate worship that God accepts, depends wholly upon Gods own institution and revelation. So Aquinas 22^ae. q. 81. art. 2, Cultum aliquem Deo exhi­bere est de dictamine rationis, at determina­tum & verum exhibere pendet ab institutione divini juris, ‘That man should worship God is the dictate of natural Reason, but that he should worship him rightly and truely, depends wholly upon supernatu­ral revelation;’ the one is matter of Instinct, the other is wholly matter of divine Institu­tion. And surely though many men now adays make very bold with God, yet there is scarce any petty master of a private fami­ly amongst us, who would not take it in high disdain, that any but himself should teach his family how to serve him.

Let us then not think, but the great Lord of Heaven and earth alone, teacheth his servants to do unto him true and accep­table service, for fear we fall under the sen­tence of that condemnation, S. Mat. 15. 9. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[Page 58] If the Saviour of the world reject thy Re­ligion, how canst thou hope to be saved by it? and surely he rejects that Religion as altogether vain and unprofitable, which takes mans institutions and inventions for any part of Gods worship, or he would never have added that word [...], (in vain) to the words of the Prophet, for whereas Isaiah saith, Their fear towards me is taught by the precept of men, Isa. 29. 13. our Saviour thus explains his saying, by way of addition, In vain do they worship me, teaching for do­ctrines the commandments of men. And tru­ly, although in the exercise of Religion, the outward order and decency depends much upon the constitutions of men, yet is that outward order and decency no substan­tial part of the Religion, nor may it so be taken, unless we will profess and say, that we have a Religion of our own ma­king; and then what remains, but that if we have made our Religion, we should also make our God?

It is to be confessed, that great is the li­berty of Christian Churches in matter of ce­remony; but those who will make ceremo­nies matter of Religion do in effect take away that liberty, by turning it into a necessi­ty, [Page 59] and do change the nature of indifferency, by supposing it indispensable, if not making it so. But herein Aquinas his observation is very judicious. In lege novâ, quae est lex amoris vel libertatis, dari tantum praecepta de operibus, quae cum gratiâ necessariam habent convenientiam vel repugnantiam; caetera ve­rò, quae non habent, relicta esse determinationi humanae, & arbitrio superiorum, si ad commu­nem utilitatem pertinent, &c. ‘That in the Gospel, which is the law of love & liberty, God hath given precepts only concerning those works, which have a necessary conve­niency or repugnancy with grace, that is, works, which immediately concern either sin or righteousness; but other things that do not immediately concern either sin or righteousness, are left to the determination and disposition of man;’ for if they be of publique interest, they are left to the judge­ment of our superiours, either Ecclesiastical or Civil; if they be of private interest, they are left to the judgement of every mans own private reason. Itaquè non ut de Sa­cramentis, it a de Sacramentalibus, hoc est, de dispositionibus ad Sacramenta vel conficienda, vel suscipienda, lex nova habet praecepta divi­na; sed determinatio ipsorum est Ecclesiae re­licta [Page 60] à Christo. ‘Therefore though we have in the Gospel explicit and direct commands about the Sacraments them­selves, yet have we not so about the Sa­cramentals, that is, about those Rites and dispositions, which are necessary either to the giving or receiving of them; but the determination of such Rites and Ceremo­nies is left by Christ unto his Church.’

The Iew indeed was confined by the text in the manner of exercising his duty to­wards God by the Ceremonial Law, and to­wards his neighbour by the Iudicial Law; but the Christian is not so: he hath docu­ments only concerning the substance or mat­ter, not concerning the form or manner of his duty, either to God or man; for such determinations hath Christ left wholly to his Church, as not belonging in themselves to Vertue and Religion, but onely to Decency and Order. Non enim ad orationem, prout est actus virtutis Religionis, de se pertinet, ut fiat tali certo loco vel tempore, aut cum illâ certâ corporis dispositione; neque ad restitutio­nem, quae est actus virtutis justitiae, pertinet ut fiat in duplum, vel in quadruplum, & sic de similibus. ‘As for example, It belongs not to prayer as it is an act of Vertue and [Page 61] Religion, that it be performed in such a certain place or time, or with such or such a posture of the body; and it belongs not to restitution which is an act of ju­stice, that it be either twofold or four­fold: Therefore the duties themselves are onely commanded in the Gospel; but the manner of their performance is not under command.’ And this is the first distinction or difference betwixt the sub­stance and the exercise of Religion, that the substance of Religion is all immediately from God, but the exercise of Religion in many things depends upon the authority of man.

Secondly, The substance of Religion re­quires an infallible or a Theological certain­ty, grounded onely upon the word of God; but the exercise of Religion is contented with a moral certainty, depending upon the testimony of man: Which being a proposi­tion of great extent, yet of greater conse­quence, shall accordingly be first divided, and then explained. I say therefore, The substance of Religion, that is, any thing of Faith, Hope, or Charity, requires an in­fallible or Theological certainty, grounded onely upon the word of God: Here, Dubius [Page 62] in fide infidelis est, is a sure rule, he that doubts in the faith is an infidel; and again, Certitudo unius partis tollit probabilitatem al­terius, is another excellent rule, ‘The cer­tainty of one part takes away the probabi­lity of the other;’ As the certainty of Christs institution of both kinds in the holy Eucharist, takes away the probability of re­ceiving in one kinde after his institution; the certainty of praying in faith to God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, takes away the probability of praying in faith to any but the blessed Trinity. But the exercise of Re­ligion is often content onely with a moral certainty; nor indeed can we have any o­ther certainty either of times, places, or per­sons, but meerly moral and humane.

Here the rule is good, Non est opus infalli­bili certitudine, sed sufficit moralis & huma­na, quae secum patitur haesitationem & suspi­cionem de contrario. In such cases there is no need of a Theological or infallible certainty, but it sufficeth that we be guided by a moral or humane certainty, which allows of many doubts and suspicions to the contrary; as for example, that God is to be praised for the nativity of his Son is grounded upon Theolo­gical certainty, for the angels sang praises to [Page 63] him for it. S. Luke 2. But that he is to be prai­sed for it on the twenty fifth day of Decem­ber, is grounded onely upon moral certainty, because antiquity hath accounted that for the very day of his nativity: And it is no wonder that we can have no better assu­rance of Christmas day, since we can have no better of the Lords day, which we are sure is of apostolical imitation, if not of apo­stolical institution; for we cannot be other­wise assured, that we keep not the second or third or fourth day, in stead of the first day of the week, but onely from humane testimo­ny; and yet he, that should have no better as­surance of the resurrection of Christ, where­on is grounded the duty of the day, would scarce deserve to be thought or called a Christian. Time, place, and person may ad­mit of doubts; but faith, hope, and charity admit of none, the reason is, these latter are of the pure substance, the former belong onely to the exercise of religion.

Thirdly, the substance of religion is un­changeable, but the exercise of Religion hath passed under a great and notorious change; it was the same faith, hope, and charity that sa­ved the Jew, which now saveth the Chri­stian; but the way of exercising all three of [Page 64] them was much different in the Jewish and in the Christian churches.

Aquinas in his 22^ae. q. 2. ar. 7. determines this question affirmatively, Utrum explicitè credere mysterium incarnationis Christi sit de necessitate salutis apud omnes, ‘whether ex­plicitely to beleeve the mystery of the in­carnation of Christ be necessary to salva­tion in regard of all men:’ and he thus demonstratively proves his determination; Illud propriè & per se pertinet ad objectum fi­dei, per quod homo beatitudinem consequitur; via autem hominibus veniendi ad beatitudi­nem est mysterium incarnationis & passionis Christi; Dicitur enim Act. 4. Non est aliud nomen datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri; & ideo mysterium incarnationis Christi aliqualiter oportuit omni tempore esse creditum apud omnes: ‘That properly and of it self belongs to the object of faith, by which a man obtains eternal blessedness; but the way for a man to come to bliss is the mystery of the incarnation and passion of Christ, for so it is said Act. 4. 12. There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved; therefore the mystery of Christs incarnation was to be beleeved in some [Page 65] sort at all times and of all men, that were to be saved:’ And he tells us that the Ro­mane histories make mention of a man ta­ken out of his grave in the time of Constan­tine the great, with a plate of gold upon his breast, wherein these words were engraven; Christus nascetur ex virgine, & ego credo in cum; O Sol, sub Irene & Constantini tempori­bus iterum me videbis. ‘Christ shall be born of a virgin, and I do beleeve in him; O Sun, in the time of Irene and Constantine thou shalt see me again.’ This he brings as a proof that such of the Gentiles as were sa­ved, did beleeve in Christ.

The proof perchance may be questiona­ble, but the doctrine cannot be so; for even Adam in his innocency had an explicite faith in the incarnation of Christ as the onely means to bring him to the consummation ofglory, though happily not till after his fall; he had an explicite faith in the passion and resurrection of Christ to deliver him from the guilt and punishment of his sins.

And if the explicite belief of the myste­ry of Christs incarnation be so necessary to salvation, we are little beholding to those men, who forbid the commemoration of that mystery, and the testification of that [Page 66] belief: but however thus we see, Omnes si­deles usque ab Adamo re quidem ipsâ Christi­anos fuisse, saith Eusebius, lib. 1. cap. 1. ‘That the Christian Religion was always the same in substance, though not in exer­cise, and the same Religion both of Jew and Christian Ratione objecti formalis,’ non ratione objecti materialis, ‘in regard of the formal, though not in regard of the ma­terial object of faith:’ the same God wor­shipped by them both, if they were true worshippers, and with the same acts of faith, hope, and love; to beleeve in him, to trust in him, and to obey and serve him; but yet a far different form and manner of profession of faith, and exercise of worship.

And thus Justin Martyr cleareth the truth of the Christian Religion to Tripho the Jew. [...]. ‘We do not think you had one God, and we have another, nor do we trust in any other God but yours (for there is no other) even the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; onely we trust in him not by Moses, nor accord­ing [Page 67] to the law, but by Christ, and accord­ing to the gospel; for the law which was given in Horeb is now antiquated, for it was given onely to you Jews; but the law which we serve God by, is a law given to all nations of the world, and is to abide to the worlds end: for Christ is given unto us as the law, and as an everlasting law; his Testament as a faithfull Testa­ment to remain for ever, after which no law, no commandment is to be expected, or may be received.’

Thus far Justin Martyr to the Jew, be­cause thus far the Apostle had stated the question to the Martyr (and indeed to all Christians) in the epistle to the Hebrews, the sum whereof is briefly this▪ that Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, coequal and coessential with the Father, and the holy Ghost, is perfect God and perfect man in the unity of the same person; and is that onely eternal King, Priest, and Prophet, which God in the fulness of time gave unto his Church, to govern, instruct, and sancti­fie it for ever: and this he proves by the promises before the law, by the types and fi­gures under the law, and by the general con­sent of all the prophets. And therefore in [Page 68] this same Christ, the Christian Church hath already a perfect knowledge of God in this world, and shall have a perfect en­joyment of him in the world to come; and therefore may expect no other Doctrine either for sanctification here, or for salvati­on hereafter.

Now in that the old Testament is al­ledged to prove and confirm the New, it is evident that the substance of Religion is one and the same in both Testaments, unless we will suppose the Spirit of God to have made use of unfit and unproper proofs; a thing not agreeable with the spirit of a pru­dent man, who gains his knowledge by suc­cession of time, and much less agreeable with the Spirit of the omniscient and onely wise God, who seeth all things at once in the looking-glass of eternity; and if the Spi­rit of God confirm the new Testament by the old, and hath left both the old and the new Testament to confirm us; then it is evi­dent that no Christian can seek to weaken or diminish the authority of either Testa­ment, but he must be an enemy to his own confirmation in the Christian faith: Where­fore among all the contestations & conten­tions that have been in the Church of Christ, [Page 69] that controversie doth least become Chri­stians, and doth most shake the foundation of Christianity, which doth seek to under­value the authority of the word of Christ; for if there be no infallible certainty in the word of Chrst, it is impossible there should be any infallible certainty in the Christian Religion, therefore they are the greatest enemies to the certainty of the Christian Religion, who seek to add to the Church by detracting from the Scripture; for if the Scripture hath not a most undoubted autho­rity, the Church can have none at all; for sure we are, the Scripture was delivered to the Church without any faults or corrupti­ons, and therefore we are bound not onely in common charity, but also in common prudence and justice to beleeve that the Church hath so kept it, because all the faults of the Text are to be layed upon the Church, to whose care and trust God did commit the keeping of the text: for God requireth two things of his Church; first, to be a faithfull keeper, then to be a faithfull in­terpreter of his word; and if we will needs say she hath not been faithfull in the keeping, how can we choose but say, she may be as unfaithfull in the interpreting of the word of [Page 70] God? So that they are the greatest schis­maticks that ever were, who under pretence of extolling the authoritie of the Church, do question, nay, debase the authoritie of the Scriptures for these men have begun an everlasting schisme, which must needs last as long in the Church, as there shall be any Christians so well perswaded of Gods truth, as to think it was worth the regi­string; and of the books wherein it was re­gistred, as to think them worth the keep­ing. And Cassander himself seems to be of this opinion in his consultation of Religion, in the chapter of the Church: ‘I cannot deny but the chiefest cause of this cala­mitie and distraction of the Church is to be ascribed to them, who being puffed up with an empty kinde of pride of ecclesia­stical power, did contemn and repel those, who rightly and modestly admonished them; wherefore I think there is no firm peace to be hoped for, unless they begin the reconciliation who began the distra­ction; that is, unless they who are set over the ecclesiastical government, do remit somewhat of their excessive rigour, and do yield somewhat to the peace of the Church, and hearkening to the in­struction [Page 71] and advice of many pious men, do correct some manifest abuses accord­ing to the rule of Gods word, and of the ancient Church, from whence they have lately swerved.’

I will set down the words in Latine, for their sakes who do understand the Authour, as well as I have the sense of them in En­glish, for their sakes who do desire to under­stand their Religion.

Non negarim praecipuam causam hujus ca­lamitatis & distractionis Ecclesiae illis assi­gnandam, qui inani quodam fastu ecclesiasticae potestatis inflati, rectè & modestè admonen­tes superbè & fastidiosè contempserunt ac re­pulerunt: Quare nullam firmam pacem spe­randam puto, nisi ab iis initium fiat, qui di­stractionis causam dederunt, hoc est, nisi ii, qui ecclesiasticae gubernationi praesunt, de ni­mio illo rigore aliquid remittant, & Ecclesiae paci aliquid concedant, & multorum piorum votis & monitis obsequentes, manifestos abu­sus ad regulam divinarum literarum, & ve­teris Ecclesiae, à quâ deflexerunt, corrigant. Cassander in consult. de Rel. ad Ferdin. 1. & Max. 2. Imp. cap. de Ecclesiâ.

His judgment is plainly this, that the Scripture is to rule and govern the Church, [Page 72] and that to advance the authority of the Church against the authority of the Scri­pture (much more above it) is to give the occasion of a calamitous, if not of a remedi­less schisme and distraction, a distraction not possibly to be remedied, till this irreligious tenent, which is the cause of it, be renoun­ced; and it is high time (though the te­nent it self be yet scarce one hundred years old) for all good Christians, that wish bet­ter to Christs interest then their own, to re­nounce it, and leave raising objections a­gainst the holy Scripture, thinking to set up the Church by pulling down the word of God; for besides that both Scripture and Church by their joynt authorities can never make us too sure of our Religion, it is not possible for the Church to stand, if the Scripture fall, but they must needs both fall together.

Whereas let the Church not be questi­oned as a faithfull keeper of the Text (which she must be, if the Text hath not been faith­fully kept) no sober man will question her as a faithfull interpreter thereof; and so the Church will have authority sufficient to confute all Heresies, and to compose all schisms; but to deny the Text to have [Page 73] been preserved inviolable and incorrupt (e­specially in the sense and Doctrine, if not in the very words and titles of it) is to deny the Churches faithfulness in preserving it, and the Churches veracity in deriving it, and consequently to deny the Churches au­thority in expounding it; for if she hath gi­ven us a false Text, how can we think she will give us a true gloss: wherefore we must abhor this tenent, not onely because it fills the mouth with blasphemies, but also be­cause it fills the heart with uncertainties, a thing as dreadfull in Religion, as detestable in common sense; for every true Christian is bound to beleeve an absolute certainty of the Christian Religion, and consequently that neither the authority of the Scripture may be doubted, which hath given the rule of Religion; nor the authority of the Catholick Church, which hath derived that rule to us, and is intrusted by our blessed Saviour to continue and derive the same rule to all man­kinde to the worlds end. Saint Luke justi­fies both in the preface to his Gospel, where he professeth that he therefore put the Gospel in writing, that Theophilus might know the certainly of those things wherein he had been instructed. S. Luke 1. 4. Whence na­turally [Page 74] follow these two inferences.

First, that writing is a more sure way of instruction, then preaching; there is the au­thority of the Scripture.

Secondly, That the word being written is supposed to be preserved as it was written; (unless we will say that Saint Luke writ his Gospel onely to instruct Theophilus, but not Christians of after ages) there is the autho­rity of the Church. Saint Luke makes the Gospel thus written, and thus preserved the rule of certainty, and how shall our ungodly or uncharitable scruples make it the rule of uncertainty?

CHAP. IV.

IT is not enough for a man to set his heart to seek the Lord, that he may confirm himself in the true Religion; but he [Page 75] must also set his face to seek the Lord, that others may be confirmed by him: & tu con­versus confirma fratres, it concerns not onely every true minister, but also every true member of Christ; and thou being con­verted strengthen thy brethren. S. Luke 22. 32.

And how could he strengthen them, but by having a profession agreeable to his faith, and a practise agreeable to his pro­fession; for they could not b [...] strengthened by Saint Peters faith, as it was internally in his heart, but as it was externally in his com­munication and in his conversation; and indeed this was the ready way for Saint Pe­ter (and is for every Christian) not onely to strengthen his brethren, but also to strengthen himself: For though the sub­stance of Religion is written in Gods book, yet is it not written in that mans heart who hath not a tongue to profess it, and a hand to practise it: wherefore it nearly con­cerns every good Christian to be ready to say with Saint Paul (be his accusers never so importunate, and his judges never so un­just) Acts 24. 14. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my fathers, beleeving all things which are written in the law & in the prophets.

[Page 76] A Text that joyns the substance and the exercise of Religion both together, and consequently must teach us so to joyn them; for as we cannot have better words for our profession, so we cannot have a better ex­ample for our practise; I will therefore ac­cordingly enlarge my self upon them, that our Religion may be the same with Saint Pauls, not onely in substance, but also in pro­fession and in practise.

And I hope the Divinity will not be the worse because it is like to be propounded by way of Sermon upon a Text; for ministers may now adays speak Gods truth more plainly in the apostles names then in their own; and this is a truth that would be plainly spoken, because it so nearly con­cerns the glory of Christ, and the salvation of Christian souls: [...], saith Saint Cyril (ep. ad Celestinum papam, in actis concilii Ephes. pars prima) ‘If Christ be evil spoken of, how shall we that are his ministers hold our peace? [...]; and if we hold our peace now, what shall we be able to say in the day of Judgment?’ and clearly our Saviour Christ is now evil spo­ken of, not onely in the holy circumstances [Page 77] of Religion, as times, places, and persons con­secrated to his name; but also in the very substance of it, in his holy word and Sacra­ments, nay in his own most holy prayer by some men, that would be thought to pro­mote Religion in its substance, whiles they discountenance and baffle it in its exercise, that is to say, both in its profession, and in its practise; both in the profession of the apo­stolical Christian faith, and in the practise of the immediate worship of Christ.

Wherefore let us consider what Saint Paul if he were present would say to these men; for I will say no more then his words do warrant me, and by consequent shall un­der my unpolished writing, but onely pro­duce his sayings, as that prophet did to Ieho­ram king of Judah who gave him a letter from Eliah, after he was assumed into hea­ven; for Eliah was taken up into heaven in the time of Iehoshaphat, as appears 2 Kin. 2. 11. and Elisha had in that kings reign suc­ceeded Eliah, as appears 2 Kin. 3. 14. where for Iehoshaphats sake Elisha regardeth the request of the king of Israel, to procure water for his perishing army; but this wri­ting came from Eliah to Iehoram, the son of Iehoshaphat reigning in his fathers stead [Page 78] after he had committed that horrid massa­cre upon his brethren, 2 Chr. 21. 4, 12. and Iunius in his notes gives this reason for it, sic oportuit impium regem ab absentibus re­prehendi, qui praesentes non fuisset passurus, ‘Thus was it fit that the wicked king should be reproved by one that was ab­sent, who would not endure the reproofs of those that were present.’

And R. David is of the same opinion (as indeed Iunius in his Notes doth frequently borrow many expositions from the Jewish D [...]. not the [...] the allegorical, but the [...] the literal interpreters, whereof Kim­chi is judged the very best) & he gives us this gloss; this writing from Eliah (saith he) was delivered after Eliah was ascended, but the meaning is that the thing had been revealed by Eliah to one of the prophets, who com­manded him to write it in a book, and give it to Iehoram, & tell him, that it was a writing sent to him from Eliah, that so Iehoram thinking the writing sent to him from hea­ven might humble his heart: So will I here present our back-sliding age with a reproof from S. Paul, that hath been so many years dead, because I see that back-sliders do not regard the reproofs of their ministers who [Page 79] are now living; and I cannot but hope if I have not willingly mistaken the Apostle, that no cōsciencious & godly man (such as we all pretend to be) will willingly mistake me.

We must then look on S. Pauls profession in this place, as a true Christians profession, because it is a profession of his Christian Re­ligion, consisting of two parts, of his worship, & of his faith, which are the two essential or substantial parts of Religion; sides & cultus, faith in God, and the worship of God; & though the faith be put last in the order of the words, yet is it first in the order of nature; for be­cause S. Paul beleeved all things which were written in the law and in the prophets, there­fore did he worship the God of his fathers.

But before our Apostle shews the sub­stance of his profession what it is; he doth shew the necessity of it, why it is; for the ne­cessity of his Christian profession is import­ed in these words [But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie] as well as the substance of it in these words [so worship I the God of my fathers, beleeving all things which are written in the law, and in the prophets.]

And indeed as it is the great duty, so it should be the great labour of every Christian [Page 80] to keep his heart true unto his Saviour, & to keep his tongue true unto his heart; to keep his heart true to Christ, that he may be unmoveable in the love of his Religion; and to keep his tongue true unto his heart, that he may be unmoveable in the profession of that love; and for both these we have here an excellent president [So worship I the God of my fathers, beleeving all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.] There his heart is true to his Saviour, in the substance of Religion; and before that; [but this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie, so worship I,] There his tongue is true to his heart in the professi­on of it: for he looks upon the profession of his Religion as a necessary duty, not to be omitted for fear, not to be dissembled for shame, [I unto thee] hints both these, I a pri­soner at the bar, to thee a iudge upon the bench; for Saint Paul was here arraigned as a felon for his Religion, which hath been allways the portion of the godly; for the wicked presidents and princes could not but say, we shall not finde any occasion against this Daniel, except we finde it against him, con­cerning the law of his God, Dan. 6. 5. I say Saint Paul had been indicted, and was here [Page 81] arraigned as a felon, or a delinquent that in the midst of a general refusal or denial of Christ, he durst own to be a Christian, and would be constant in the profession of his Christianity; and he shews that notwith­standing all the affronts offered him, and the aspersions cast upon him, yet his profes­sion being truly Christian was such as he might not be afraid, would not be ashamed of: [I unto thee] is enough against the fear, & [which they call heresie] is enough against the shame. Let us put on the armour of proof against the fear, and we shall need of no mask or vizard against the shame.

And surely this Ego in the Text, Saint Pauls example is warrant enough not to be afraid, for so saith the holy Ghost by his mouth, Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ, 1 Cor. 11. 1. Every man is bound to follow his Church, where that follows his Saviour; but because this refra­ctory age thinks it the nearest cut to go to Christ to run away from his Church, it will not be amiss to shew how our blessed Savi­ours example did move Saint Paul, that so both examples together may the more for­cibly move us not to be afraid to make pro­fession of our Religion: For so it is record­ed [Page 82] of our blessed Saviour, that before Pontius Pilate he witnessed a good confession, or a good profession, 1 Tim. 6. 13. can we be called be­fore worse tyrants then Felix and Pilate? Can we look for better examples then Saint Paul and our blessed Saviour, the one the teacher, the other the King of Saints? & lo, Saint Paul professed his Religion before Fe­lix, our blessed Saviour before Pilate, and both them professed it when there was the greatest danger of that profession, when they were in danger of their lives (not one­ly of their livelyhoods) for professing it; if the tyranny cannot be greater, why should the profession be less? for so Saint Chryso­stome sets down the profession of Christ be­fore Pontius Pilate. [...], ‘I came to be a witness to the truth, or a martyr for it:’ a witness to the truth in times of peace and prosperity; a martyr for the truth in times of opposition and apostasie: so should every Christian think and say that he was not born as a man, much less new-born as a Christian for himself, but for his Saviour, to be a witness to he truth: For if this principle of Religion were doctrinal in our hearts to beleeve it, it would also be pra­ctical in our lives to perform it; but we be­leeve [Page 83] not the doctrine, and therefore regard not the practise; the faith is first dead, then the work, so saith the prophet, He that be­leeveth in him shall not make haste, Isa. 28. 16. (id est) ex impatientiâ & infidelitate ad res praesentes non confugiet, saith Junius, ‘He that beleeveth in him shall not make such haste, as out of impatience and infidelity to comply with the present occasions or opportunities, more to keep his estate, then to keep his conscience, as those mis­creants did.’ v. 15. who said we have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at a­greement, when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us, for we have made lies our refuge, and under falshood have we hid our selves. Iunius thus rightly explaineth their wicked meaning, ‘we are as secure, as if we had made a covenant with death, we have done as much as wise men can do, (and more then honest men will do) to preserve our selves to make an agreement with those that are too strong for us; we have cast up our banks against the overflowing scourge, and though you call it lies and falshood, which we have done, yet we know it is our best policy, and our best security.’

[Page 84] This is to make haste in times of persecu­tion for Religion, and this he will not do, who truly beleeves in Christ; and because such haste commonly ends in confusion, the Greek interpreters (& Saint Paul from them) in stead of [shall not make haste], do thus ren­der the words, [shall not be confounded,] Rom. 9. 33. A good Christian will make no such haste as tends onely to shame and confusion, because he beleeves in Christ, and there­fore will patiently wait his leisure, and zea­lously follow his example; that is, he will profess Gods truth, maugre all the opposi­tions of malicious, all the scorns and reproa­ches of ungodly and profane blasphemers: for so Saint Chrysostome saith, our blessed Saviour made his profession: and he hath good ground for saying so (as have gene­rally all the fathers for what they say, though our upstart Divines come most com­monly with an Ipse dixit, a proof rather of their confidence, then of their doctrine, such a proof as is not indurable in sound Philosophy, and much less in sound Divini­ty;) for Saint Iohn had said so much before him, S. Iohn 18. 37. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, [...], not onely to be a witness to [Page 85] the truth, but also to be a martyr for the truth: This was our Saviours profession con­cerning himself, not onely as he was perso­nally Christ, but also as he was mystically so, and in that regard must needs concern every Christian who is a part of his mysti­cal body; for it was an excellent determi­nation of the Feudarie law, si in praelio Do­minum non mortuum, nec ad mortem vulnera­tum reliquit Vasallus, Feudum amittit, (Cata­neus in Feudo.) ‘If the fee-farmer or copy-holder leave his lord in the battle, being wounded, but not dead, nor having his deaths wound, he is to forfeit his fee-farm or copy-hold, because of his detestable unthankfulness.’

This rule will much concern us Christi­ans, if we seriously consider it, and if not, it will concern us so much the more: For we all hold the right of our inheritance to heaven as it were by copy from our blessed Saviour, whom God hath appointed heir of all things, Heb. 1. 2. This our Lord is often wounded, Acts 9. 4. why persecutest, why woundest thou me? but cannot be wounded unto death, for he is our almighty God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. If we run away and leave him in the battels, or rather the uproars and coun­ter-scuffles [Page 86] of wicked & ungodly miscreants (for man can have no title to a just war a­gainst his Maker, and much less against his Redeemer) we shall forfeit our copies, and perchance may loose our inheritance.

Nor let us think to excuse our selves, by saying we took them who grievously wounded our Lord for his friends (because of their specious and godly pretenses) not for his enemies; for it is all one as to our sin, if we leave him, and shall be all one as to our punishment, whether he be wound­ed by his enemies or by his friends; for himself owneth to be wounded by his friends, as well as by his enemies, Zech. 13. 6. and one shall say unto him, what are those wounds in thy hands? (nay in thine heart Lord, for our profaneness hath more pierced thine heart, then their nails pierced thine hands) then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends; that is, such men as pretended to be my friends, saying they would advance the glory of Christ, & the purity of the Christian Religi­on; for he that was wounded for our trans­gressions, Isa. 53. 5. is still so wounded by transgressours, as our transgressions do wound us; some wound us as enemies, that [Page 87] ap­pear in their own hostile colours, some as friends that carry a pretence, a shew of righ­teousness: If we leave him in his wounds, we forfeit our copies, and let go our interest to heaven; for thar of Saint Mark, 14. 50. and they all forsook him and sled, was before his title to his Lordship had been fully clear­ed, and therefore obtained pardon; but now if we forsake him and slee, neither will his mercy pardon us, nor can our own con­sciences admit his pardon untill we return a­gain; for if we will needs forget him, why should we think he will remember us? and we may forget him, not onely by letting him slip out of our memory, but also by letting him slip out of our commemoration; it is A­ben Ezra's observation upon the words of the Preacher, Eccl. 9. 15. yet no man re­membred that same poor man, [...] this word [...] is not onely to remember in the minde, but also to commemorate with the mouth; and so it is said, no man remem­bred that poor man, because no man spake ho­nourably of him: so is it with us, if we com­memorate not our Saviours merits and mer­cies, we forget them; and therefore if we pro­fess not his truth, we may not be thought to remember it: for we cannot but know the [Page 88] grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich, 2 Cor. 8. 9. He is that poor man who by his wisdom hath delivered the city of God, and in it our souls; Oh let it never be said, Through our fearfulness, and much less through our unthankfulness, that we did not remember that poor man.

Secondly, this profession is such as we may not be ashamed of, [after the way which they call heresie.] Here was a course taken to make Saint Paul ashamed, as well as a­fraid; for he was not onely questioned for his life, to make him afraid; but he was also questioned as if he had been a delinquent or malefactour, to make him ashamed of his Religion; he was publickly indicted at a grand Sessions, as if he had been some felon or murderer; and Tertullus would fain per­swade his judges that he and his complices were able to prove the indictment, v. 5. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow (Graetè [...], a meer plague or pestilence, as ready to infect our souls, as the plague is rea­dy to infect our bodies) & a mover of sediti­on among all the Jews throughout the world. (it was they were the movers of the sedition, [Page 89] though the Apostle was accused for it) and a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarens: [...], one that stood in the first rank or file, as ready both to maintain & promote the sect: We may in brief say with S. Chrysostome, that they did seek to make him odious for his dis­affection, as well as contemptible for his Re­ligion, & accordingly used all cunning artifice that they might so do, therefore they said; they found him as if he had been some run-away, whereas he was no less then seven whole days together in the temple but their chiefest spite was against his Religion, and therefore they revile & reproach that, as if it were impious against God (fitter to infect souls then to save them) seditious against the State, (fitter to make factions, then to com­pose them;) and ignominious in it self, (fit­ter for Nazareth then for Jerusalem, and ra­ther to be called a Sect, then a Religion:) but he knows it to be the onely way of sanctifi­cation, of peace, of glory; and will not be discountenanced in it by their reproaches, and much less driven from it by their mena­cies, which is the resolution of every one that desires to be a man after Gods own heart, and the performance of every one that is so, Psal. 119. 61. the bands or the com­pa­nies,, [Page 90] (Hebr. the ropes, the cables, that are so twisted together as not to be unravelled, and much less to be broken) the bands of wicked men have robbed me, (have made a prey of me) but I have not forgotten thy law. If neither fear could drive Saint Paul, nor shame could keep him from the profession of his Religion, it is evident that he thought it necessary by a double necessity, the neces­sity of command, and the necessity of means conducing to the end; necessitate praecepti, necessitate sinis. First, the profession of our Religion is necessary in regard of the pre­cept, for we have the command of Christ for it, S. Mat. 10. 32. whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But you will say; this onely concerns his person, and who is such a reprobate as to deny his Savi­our; therefore see S. Mar. 8. 38. you will finde it doth also concern his doctrine; who­soever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinfull gene­ration, of him also shall the Son of man be a­shamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Fa­ther, with the holy angels.

If godly, and devout, and efficacious forms of prayer be not Christs words, shame upon [Page 91] his Church for obtruding them; if they be Christs words, shame upon schismaticks for rejecting them: if the apostles Creed be not Christs word, how came it to be universally received and professed in Christs Church? if it be, how may it be disused or despised by any Christians? Lastly, if Christs own most holy prayer, be not his words, let us leave it out of the text; if it be, how can we leave it out of our prayers? nay, how dare we multiply cavils and blasphemies, in stead of arguments or objections, against the use of it? for all pretence of excuse is here taken away; let the adulterous and sinfull generation be ashamed of it, but let not the righteous, and the faithfull servants of Christ be so.

Though the whole generation adulterate the truth in corrupting the doctrine of it, yet we must keep it undefiled; though the whole generation bid defiance to the truth, by ne­glecting and reviling the practise of it, yet we must continue in our uprightness; though the whole generation be adulterous and sin­full going a whoring after their own inven­tions, and turning away from Christ, yet that is not ground enough for us to bear them company.

[Page 92] For it is equally necessary for every Chri­stian to profess the true Religion, (when he is thereunto called) and to abandon idolatry and superstition; that idolatrous decree might no more be obeyed, which forbad Da­niel to pray to the true God, then that which commanded the three children to worship a false god: In this case, the omission is dan­gerous as well as the commission; for the omission denies God whom it doth not wor­ship, as the commission blasphemes God by false worshipping; and therefore we ought not to be terrified from the true Religion for fear of the lions ready to devour and break us in pieces, no more then we ought to be ter­rified into the false Religion for fear of the fiery furnace ready to burn us to ashes.

And this Divinity we may learn not one­ly from the prophet Daniel in the captivity, but also from the prophet Jeremy before it; who of purpose to forewarn and forearm the Jews against the temptations of their bon­dage, did put down that verse in Syriack, Jer. 10. 11. whereby they were to reprove the Babylonians for their idolatry, whereas all the rest of his prophecy is in Hebrew: so little were the Iews to be ashamed or afraid of owning their Religion and their God in [Page 93] Babylon, that they were to reprehend the Babylonians, for their idolatry even in their own language, and in their own territories and dominions; and we that look upon the Scripture as a perfect rule of Faith and Life, must look upon these prophets as teaching us how to behave our selves in persecution or adversity, no less then we look upon the rest as teaching us how to behave our selves in peace or prosperity: For so Kimchi him­self tells us ‘upon the fore-named verse of the prophet Ieremy; that it was writ in Sy­riack, to the intent the Iews might be rea­dy to answer the Babylonians in their own language, if in their captivity they should tempt them either to serve false gods, or to deny the true;’ for (saith he) this say­ing of God did the prophet Ieremy send to the children of the captivity, that they might have it ready to answer the Chaldeans.

Secondly, the profession of our Religion is necessary in regard of the end, not onely in regard of Gods command, but also in re­gard of our own salvation, for we cannot have Christ without it: so saith the Apo­stle, Heb. 4. 14. Seeing then that we have a great High Priest that is passed into the hea­vens, Iesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our [Page 94] profession: The inference must be this, if we hold not fast our profession, it is because we have not yet this High Priest to make in­tercession for us, and without his intercession we cannot come boldly to the throne of grace: the same exhortation he repeats a­gain, Heb. 10. 21, 22, 23. and reenforceth it with the same reason, not for want of va­riety to express himself, (for he was called Mercury, because he was the chief speaker, Act. 14. 12.) but to keep us from variety, or ra­ther inconstancy in our profession: where­fore thus he argueth, we cannot draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, un­less we hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for the words are spoken consequenter, by way of consequence, and from the eversion of the consequent, the ar­gument is undeniable to the eversion of the antecedent: Therefore, they who are not true to themselves, holding fast the profes­sion of their faith, cannot easily be true to their Saviour by drawing near to him with a true heart in full assurance of faith; and ac­cordingly he saith not, Let us hold fast our faith, which is onely internal; but, Let us hold fast the profession of our faith, which is ex­ternal: It is not enough to say that we keep the [Page 95] one, unless we also can shew that we keep the other.

And what then can be the reason that so many men daily fall from the profession of the faith, but meerly a twofold ignorance (though they pretend to knowledge) one of themselves, another of their Saviour: They are ignorant of themselves, know not their spiritual state or condition, know not when they are on the mount, when they are cal­led to the state of grace, and therefore say not with Saint Peter, Lord, it is good for us to be here: And they are ignorant of their Saviour, acknowledge him not as the Captain of their salvation, or they would never for­sake his colours; they look no further then the outworks of Religion, look not into the foundation of it, for if they did they would be unmoveable; the foundation moves not, no more can he be moved that sticks and cleaves to the foundation.

O thou which art the way, the truth, and the life; the way wherein we should walk, the truth to direct our goings, and the life to re­ward us at our journeys end; Forgive us our strayings and straglings out of thy way, direct us in thy truth, and never leave directing us till thou bring us to everlasting life, to bless [Page 96] & praise thee our most mercifull Redeemer, with the Father and the holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.

Thus we see the necessity of being con­stant in our Christian profession, if we will either hear St. Pauls doctrine, or follow his example. Let us in the next place observe the substance of that profession, that we may be unshaken and unmoveable in our con­stancy: For Religion is best when it comes nearest God, as having holiness from his pu­rity, and peace from his unity, so also having duration and perseverance from his enternity: Accordingly St. Pauls Religion depends al­together on God, and therefore in the pro­fession and practice of his Religion, we are sure to meet with nothing but with unque­stionable true godliness; for the substance of his profession is twofold, professio cultûs, professio fidei, a profession of worship, [so wor­ship I,] & a profession of faith, [beleeving all things, &c.] Concerning his worship it is e­vident he had the true Religion, for he wor­shipped God; and he had also the ancient Re­ligion, for he worshipped the God of his fa­thers.

His Religion was the true Religion, in modo colendi, in objecto cultûs, in the manner [Page 97] of his worshipping, and in the object of his worship.

First, in the manner of his worshipping, for it was with great fear and reverence, [...] (saith he) which is a word derived from much trembling; but whether it be so in the word or no, is not material, it must be so in the thing; for it is the very nature of true Religion to fear God, and therefore the one is expressed and explained by the other, Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him; if there be no fear, there can be no service, if there be no reverence, there can be no Religion: Unless the Centuri­on, and they that were with him, had feared greatly, they had never honoured Christ by saying, truly this was the Son of God; S. Mat. 27. 54. A Religion without fear cannot pierce the heart to make room for God, much less open the mouth to glorify him; and therefore the prophet Jeremy calling upon the Jews to return to their Religion, labours to fill their hearts with the fear of God, Jer. 5. 22. Fear ye not me, saith the Lord, will ye not tremble at my presence?

Secondly, St. Pauls Religion was also the true Religion, in objecto cultûs, in the object of his worship, [...], I worship God: Di­vineiy [Page 98] S. Aug. Quod colit summus angelus, id colendum ab homine insimo; what is worshipped by the highest angel, that is to be worshipped by the lowest man; angels then are fellow-worship­pers with men, not objects of their wor­ship:

And as it is with Adoration, so also with Invocation; for they both alike tend to the acknowledgement of the Supremest excel­lency, the one by Deed, the other by Word; the one by bowing to his Majesty, the other by calling upon his Mercy; And Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, ‘That the Invocation of Saints was no part of the Old Religion in the Old Testament; because (saith he) the Patriarchs, and Prophets before Christs death, were not admitted immediately into glory.’ [In carceribus inferni detinebantur.] But is it not safer to say, that Invocation be­ing the highest honour we can give, may not be given save onely to the most Highest, by the Religion either of the old or of the new Testament? for there is neither precept nor example, nor promise for the Invocation of any but of God alone in all the book of God, so that we cannot Invocate either Saint or Angel in Faith, and whatsoever is not of Faith is sin, (Rom. 14. 23.) And if our Prayers [Page 99] be turned into sin, (which was a curse prophe­tically intended onely against the person of Iudas for betraying our blessed Saviour, Psa. 109. v. 7. nor can we have share in the curse, unless we have a share in the treachery) I say, if our prayers be turned into sin, what shall we do to pray for the forgiveness of our sins, if so be, that we still sin in praying? So neerly doth it concern all Christians to be sure that their Religion be (as St. Pauls was) true in the Object of their worship:

And by the same reason that his Religi­on was the true, it was also the ancient Reli­gion. Doceant Adamum Sabbatizâsse, was an excellent challenge against those who main­tained the morality of the Jewish Sabbath; ‘Let them shew it was a part of Adams Re­ligion, or they will never be able to prove it ought to be a part of ours;’ for the same religion that saved him must save us; if it be the truest, it will appear to the first: & so is it here with S. Pauls religion; as it was the true, so was it also the ancient Religion, for he worshipped the God of his fathers: [...], Patrio Deo meo, saith the vulgar Lat. My Fa­thers God (and) my God; whereby he had both the credit, and the comfort of his Religion;

First, S. Paul had the credit of his Religi­on, [Page 100] that it had been tryed by so long experi­ence, for so many years together, and had justified it self in that tryal; Religion like an aged-man requiring our esteem by be­ing gray-headed, and that practice of godli­ness being most venerable, which is likest God, in being the Ancient of dayes. Dan. 7. 9.

And we of this Church of England can have no better plea for our selves, and ought not to use a worse, then to say, that our Religion is the same Religion with our Fathers, though not the same Superstition with it; wherein they had left their first Fa­thers, (the Apostles, and the Primitive Chri­stians) therein onely have we left them: for we profess with those Holy men, Ezra 5. 11. We are the servants of the God of hea­ven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years agoe; we desire not to lay one stone more, nor one stone less, then was anciently laid, onely we are not willing to mistake a false for a true Anti­quity. Id verum, quod primum, that is the truest which was the first; And it was our Blessed Saviours own way of reasoning; Non sic fuit ab initio; It was not so from the beginning, and yet it had been so for a ve­ry long time before.

[Page 101] Secondly, S. Paul had the comfort of his Religion, in that he worshipped the God of his Fathers; for his Religion entitled him to the same God his Fathers had before him, who had shewed great mercy to them, and had promised to shew mercy to their children for their sakes; the Jews had comfort in their Fathers, when they had not in themselves; Moses useth three Argu­ments why God should not destroy the children of Israel for their Idolatry, Exod. 32. 11, 12, 13. The first was his former be­nefits, lest they should seem to be lost and thrown away; The second was his own glo­ry, lest that should be obscured, and his Name blasphemed; and neither of these two Arguments prevailed; his former good­ness had been too much abused, his after glory might be otherwise repaired: But then follows his third Argument, his Promises to the Fathers, and that prevails, then imme­diately, saith the Text, And the Lord repent­ed of the evil which he thought to do unto his people, ver. 14.

Gods veracity is indispensable, and must be indisputable: And thus Jarchi glosses upon this third Argument, ‘If they have sinned against all thy Ten Command­ments, [Page 102] yet remember Abraham was up­right in his Ten Temptations; let Ten go for Ten; nay more, If thou hast purpo­sed to burn them, or kill them, or banish them, yet remember Abraham, and Isaac, and Israel thy servants, thou wilt not do it; Remember that Abraham at thy com­mand exposed himself to burning, when he went to Ur (that is Fire) in the Chalde­aens: Isaac exposed himself to killing, & Ja­cob exposed himself to a long Banishment, to a wearisome Pilgrimage:’ And thus God himself comforted Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy Father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears, Is. 38. 5.

So willing & so ready is God to shew mer­cy, that he will find a cause to shew it to the Children for their Fathers sake, when he can­not for their own: & doubtless it is to teach them not to trust in their own righteous­ness, if they be righteous, nor to distrust his mercy when they have been captivated un­der the dominion of sin & unrighteousness.

And thus much concerning the worship of God, the first substantial part of S. Pauls Religion; The second substantial part there­of still remains undiscussed, and that is his Faith: Concerning which we may observe [Page 103] two things, First, That it was the Catholick Faith, Secondly, the Proof that it was so.

First, That his Faith was the Catholick Faith, [Beleeving all things.] A Christians Faith may be called Catholick in a two-fold respect, either essentially or accidentally; essentially in the substance of it, when he beleeves all those Christian Truths that God hath revealed as necessary to salvation, and beleeves them because of Gods Reve­lation; for as the second Epistle of Saint Iohn is called a Catholick Epistle, though writ to a private person, because it is Catho­lick or universal in its Instructions, though it be onely particular in its occasion; so is the true Faith, the Catholick Faith, though it may be continued onely among some few true Beleevers (for what hath been already may be again, and this case hath been in the days of Athanasius) because it is uni­versal in its Obligation, though perchance almost singular in its Profession.

And in this sense the Catholick Faith and the Christian Faith are both one, whence Athanasius calls that the Catholick, which others have called the Christian Faith; al­though he insist most upon the true do­ctrine concerning the Blessed Trinity, even [Page 104] as the Imperial Edict (cited in the Code, in the Title de summâ Trinitate & Fide Ca­tholicâ) gives the name of Catholicks to those Christians who had a right belief con­cerning the holy and undivided Trinity; not onely (as we may suppose) because the chief­est hereticks of those daies had erred in that doctrine, but also because they who erred not in it, could not easily erre in denying a­ny Fundamental of the true Christian Faith.

And thus Aquinas very briefly and plain­ly tels us what is this Christian or Catholick Faith, even that Faith which brings us here to the saving knowledge, and will bring us hereafter to the blessed enjoyment of our Saviour Christ. Credibilia de quibus est Fi­des secundum se, quae directè ordinant ad Vi­tam Aeternam, (Nam Fides est principaliter de his quae videnda speramus in patriâ, Heb. 11. 1.) Ut Incarnatio Christi & Trinitas: At alia sunt de quibus non est Fides secundum se, sed solum in ordine ad priora, sc. ad mani­festationem eorum, ut quòd Abraham habuerit duos silios. (22 ae qu. 1.) ‘Those truths do properly and of themselves belong to the Christian Faith, which do immediately and directly order and dispose the beleever to eternal life; for Faith is principally of those [Page 105] things which we hope to see and enjoy in heaven, Heb. 11. 1. such as are the Incar­nation of Christ, and the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity: But there are other truths which do not properly and of themselves belong to the Christian-Faith, but onely in order to these (to wit) as far as they conduce to the manifestation of them, as that Abraham had two sons:’

As for the first of these, they are to be explicitly beleeved of all Christians alike; As for the second, it sufficeth if they be im­plicitly beleeved by those who have not the means of an explicit Faith concerning them; so that we may thus gloss S. Pauls words, [Beleeving all things that are written,] viz. either explicitly or implicitly; all things ex­plicitly that are revealed to me, and all things implicitly that are revealed in the Text: For every good Christian hath a preparation of his soul to beleeve whatsoe­ver is contained in the whole word of God, and a resolution of his soul to beleeve it, as soon as it shall appear to him to be so.

Thus again the same Angelical Doctour, Nam Fidei objectum per se, est, per quod homo heatus es sicitur, per accidens autem & secun­dariò, omnia quae in sacrâ Scripturâ Divini­tus [Page 106] traditâ, continentur. (22 ae qu. 2. art. 5.) ‘The object of Faith essentially in and of it self, is that which brings a man to the beatifical Vision (for Faith is to end in Vi­sion, as Hope in Comprehension, and Cha­rity in Fruition) But the object of Faith accidentally and secondarily is whatsoever is contained in the holy Scriptures, that have been delivered to us from God.’

As for the first, every Christian is bound to beleeve them by an actual and explicit consent or perswasion, and say with S. Pe­ter (S. Joh. 6. 69.) We beleeve and are sure that thou art that Christ the Son of the living God: We beleeve and are sure of this all alike, Superiours and Inferiours: but as for the second, a virtual consent is sufficient, which is not in the perswasion, but onely in the preparation of a good Christians soul, whereby he is ready to beleeve what­soever shall appear to him to be contained in the holy Scriptures; so that we may not unfitly say, that S. Pauls Profession here sets one rule for a Christian man, and ano­ther rule for a Christian Divine, [to beleeve all things in the Law and in the Prophets] For though both beleeve all things, yet the Christian man beleeves many things by [Page 107] an Implicit which the Christian Divine (who hath a greater measure of knowledge) is bound to beleeve by an Explicit Faith; for it is without all dispute, that God requires not the same degree of Faith in all alike, neither extensively nor intensively, but to whom much is given, of him much is required. Wherefore this is the Catholick Faith es­sentially, a Faith that delivers and contains either explicitly or implicitly all that God hath revealed to man for his salvation.

Again, The Faith may be called the Ca­tholick Faith accidentally, not in regard of the substance, but in regard of the extent and diffusion of it; as when we beleeve those ‘Truths which have been beleeved at all times, in all places, and of all men that professed the Faith of Christ:’ Quae ubi­que, semper, & ab omnibus credita est, as saith Lirinensis. And in this sense Faith is but accidentally Catholick: For it is but an acci­dent of the Christian Faith, that it be thus generally received or professed; and there­fore we finde that in several ages of the Church, the Christian Faith hath not met with this reception or profession: I told you of Athanasius before, another will tell you, that when our Saviour Christ was put to [Page 108] death, ‘True Faith remained onely in the Blessed Virgin,’ Fides in solâ Virgine re­mansit, so Picus Mirandula; and long be­fore him Bonaventure seems to have been of the same opinion, who gives this reason why the Saturday was more peculiary devo­ted to the honour of the Blessed Virgin, ‘because that in Her alone was the Faith of the Resurrection, during that Sabbath or Saturday which Christ passed in the Grave:’ Indubitantèr credendum est quòd Virgo Maria semper in side stetit; Unde disci­pulis non credentibus & dubitantibus, ipsa fuit in quâ sides Ecclesiae remanserat solida & inconcussa; & ideo diem sabbati solennizat in honorem ejus omnis Ecclesia. (Bona in 3. sent. Dist. 3. 13.) ‘He saith, all the Disci­ples had lost the Faith (as loath that S. Peter should go alone) and that all the Church did solemnize Saturday in honour of the Virgin Mary, who one­ly had not lost it;’ but he means surely his own Church, which he looked upon as all; for it will be hard to prove, that any other Christian Church ever had this belief or this practise, but onely the Latine Church; and that Church hath had both a long time▪ & hath accordingly instituted and ap­pointed [Page 109] the Office of the Virgin Mary to be said every week on Saturday, as the Office of the Trinity on Sunday, of the Angels on Munday, of salus Populi on Tuesday, of the Holy Ghost on Wednesday, of the Venerable Sacrament on Thursday, and of the Holy Cross on Friday: (Missae votivae sive com­mune in missali secundum usum sacrum.) And the Rubrick gives this for the reason of that Institution; Quia Domino crucifixo & mor­tuo Discipulis fugientibus, & de Resurrectio­ne desperantibus, in illâ solâ tota fides reman­sit: ‘Because while the Lord Christ lay dead and buried, the Disciples being all fled, and despairing of the Resurrection, his Virgin Mother alone retained entirely the Christian Faith.’

It is not my purpose to examine the truth of this relation, nor the use that hath been made of it, I onely ask the Question, was not the Catholick Faith the same then when it had so few Professours, as it was after­wards, when all the Disciples professed it, and by their Preaching caused the whole world to profess it? If it were not the same Faith, then was the Blessed Virgin saved by one Faith, and we by another plainly a­gainst the Text, one Lord, one Faith, Eph. [Page 110] 4. 5. We must therefore say, it was the same Faith then, which is now, the very same Catholick Faith, but essentially in the substance or perswasion of it, not acciden­tally in the extent or profession of it: the same essentially, for it [beleeved all things in the Law and the Prophets,] though not the same accidentally, for there was not the same profession of that belief: For it is the same spirit of Faith whereby one beleeves, and whereby many beleeve, as plainly S. Paul declareth; We having the same spirit of faith, as it is written, I beleeved and there­fore have I spoken, We also beleeve and there­fore speak: 2 Cor. 4. 13. Take I in the sin­gular, or We in the plural, 'tis the same spi­rit of faith, in many and in few beleevers; We also beleeve and therefore speak. There is no speaking, no praying without this Faith, and there can be no wilfull neglecting either Time, or Means, or house of prayer with it; If we beleeve, we will speak; If we will not speak, it is because we do not beleeve.

God takes it for an honour to be trust­ed, he that trusts him most, honours him most; For he most beleeves both his All­sufficiency and his All-efficiency: In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust, deliver me in thy [Page 111] Righteousness, Psal. 71. 1, 2. O happy man who can pray to be delivered in Gods Righ­teousness, when he cannot in his own; for surely God will always be righteous, though men seldome be so; if we make him our trust, he will not fail nor deceive his trust; therefore he that trusteth most, honour­eth most, because he beleeveth most; and he that beleeveth most, prayeth most: for as he that beleeveth, speaketh in his heart, the assent being nothing else but the in­ternal word of the minde; so he that speak­eth in his heart, speaketh also with his tongue, the expression of the mouth being nothing else but the external word of the heart; by the internal word a man speak­eth so as to hear and understand himself; by the external word he speaketh so as that others may hear and understand him: For with the heart man beleeveth unto righteous­ness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, Rom. 10. 10.

Are you for the belief? and why should you not also be for the confession? Are you afraid to lose the righteousness of God for want of Faith? and why should you not be afraid to lose the salvation of God for want of the Confession? If we did look [Page 112] upon the profession of Religion as an act of Faith, (as we ought to do) and not as an act of Custom, we would all labour to be as un­changeable in our profession, as we desire to be thought unchangeable in our Faith; then would this distinction of Faith essentially & accidentally Catholick, come to nothing; for as the Christian Faith is at all times e­qually Catholick in the Veracity of its per­swasion, so it would also all times be equal­ly Catholick in the extent of its profession.

And good reason it should be so, since it is grounded upon Gods Word, which is as unchangeable as himself, for so saith S. Paul, [Beleeving all things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets;] which is the rea­son or proof that his Faith is truly Catho­lick, because it beleeves nothing but what is written: Non credimus, quia non legimus, was S. Hieroms rule to confute Helvidius; Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus: Hoc quia de scripturis non habet autoritatem, câdem facilitate contemni­tur quâ probatur: ‘We do not beleeve that the Blessed Virgin had any other childe after our Blessed Saviour, because we do not reade it; for what hath not its au­thority from the Scriptures, is rejected [Page 113] with the same facility that it is alledged:’ so S. Paul here urgeth the Scripture, the written word, as the rule of his Faith, and the Law and the Prophets as the specifica­tion of that rule.

Out of this Rule our Saviour Christ con­futeth the devil, S. Mat. 4. nor doth the de­vil cavil with the manner of his confutati­on, as some of late have done, as if they thought it too little to be tormented by the devil, unless they might also be condemned by him, objecting the uncertainty of the Hebrew Points, or the difference of the Greek and Latine Translations, or the va­rious readings of the Text, and as various expositions of it; & yet it is observable, that not one of those Texts there quoted by our Saviour Christ doth exactly agree with the original, word for word; not one Text is the same with the Original in words, though every one be in sense; As for example, in Deut. 8. 3. no mention is made of Word, yet our Saviour saith, by every word that proceed­eth out of the mouth of God; so Deut. 6. 16. the Text speaks in the Plural number, Ye shall not tempt; Our Saviour quoteth it in the Singular, Thou shalt not tempt: So Deu. 6. 13. Moses saith, Thou shalt fear the Lord [Page 114] thy God and serve him; but our Saviour Christ quoteth him thus, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serve; altering one word, and adding ano­ther. O that men would be ingenuous with God, and rather then not learn this good lesson, would learn it from this bad Ma­ster, who durst not in Gods cause refuse to be tried by Gods Word, but was far from loading himself with more sin, by seeking to load the Word of Truth either with Ca­vils or with Calumnies: for if it be written in the Law & in the Prophets, it is not to be gainsaid, it is not to be contradicted; if it be not written there, as it was not in S. Pauls Religion, so it may not be in ours.

But you will say, the specification of this Rule is too narrowly confined to the Law and the Prophets; I answer, that by these words is meant whatsoever is comprised in the Canon of the Old Testament, as it was established and received in the Jewish Church: For the holy Ghost plainly saith, that to them (i. e. to the Jews) were committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3. 2. now the Jews before and at the coming of Christ were of two sorts, the one properly called Hebrews, which lived in Jerusalem or Judea, and un­derstood [Page 115] the Hebrew tongue, or else S. Paul would not have spoken to them in it, Act. 21. 40. The other called Hellenists or Greci­ans, either because they were dispersed a­mong the Greeks, as saith Baronius, Judaeos in Graeciâ habitantes dictos Graecos, in Palae­stinâ Hebraeos; or because they used in their Synagogues to read the Bible onely in Greek, as Scaliger will have it, Quia Biblia Graecè tantum legere soliti sunt: We read of these two several sorts of Jews both toge­ther, Act. 6. 1. There arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, that is, of the Jews that used the Greek Bibles, against those Jews that used the Hebrew Bibles in their Synagogues: And hence it came to pass, that as the Jews themselves were of two sorts, so they did use a twofold Text of Scripture in their Synagogues; the one in Hebrew, the orher in Greek; whence Ter­tullian in his Apology (cap. 18.) advising even Painims to search the Old Testament, ‘whereby they might be drawn to the Christian Faith, saith, That it was to be seen in Ptolemies library, or to be heard in Rome,’ and other places in the Jewish Syn­agogues, who by paying a standing tribute, did purchase this liberty of openly reading [Page 116] the Scriptures, and that not onely in He­brew, but also in Greek, in the same tongue wherein they were translated in Ptolemie's library, as appears by a supplication of the Jews unto the Emperour Iustinian. (Authen­ti. 146. Col. 10. quod sic incipit, Aequum sanè,) wherein they make request, That it might be lawful for them to read the Greek trans­lation of the seventy Interpreters in their Synagogues, as their custome before had been; for in all probability the Jews of the dispersion made this petition, because they understood not the Hebrew text, as did not the Jews of Palestine, who did partly un­derstand it in it self, but fully as it was trans­lated in the Chaldee Paraphrase, which was therefore read with the text in their Syn­agogues: and hence it came to pass that the Greek text was first generally received by the Christian Church, because those Jews which used it were dispersed among the Gentiles, and the Greek was now be­come the common language of the world, and this Greek text or translation having been used in the Apostles times for these reasons, to wit, for the uniting of the Jews and Gentiles into one communion, and for the common edification of both being so u­nited, [Page 117] did happily cause Saint Luke to conti­nue the name of Cainan in the genealogy of Christ, (because he found it in the Greek, though it was not in the Hebrew Bible) lest if he should have altered the long recei­ved translation, he should have discounte­nanced the newly received Religion, which evangelical condescension of his did no more authorize the Greek translation to justle with the Hebrew text, then the Apo­stles condescension before, of abstaining from bloud and meats offered to idols, did authorize the Gentiles to turn Jews, or the Jews to continue in their Judaisme. But however, sure we are the Greek Translati­on was first generally received, because it was generally understood both by Jews and Christians; whereas the Hebrew text was then fully understood onely by some few Jews, and scarce at all by any Christians.

And thus did the Jews use two sorts of Bibles in their Synagogues, and accordingly did they deliver both sorts down to the Christian Church, the one in Hebrew, the other in Greek; but though they deliver­ed down a double text of Scripture, yet they delivered not down a double Canon of Scri­pture, as Iosephus himself doth testifie, lib. 1. [Page 118] contra Appionem, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 10. who affirmeth, That the Church of the Jews had but twenty two books for the ground of their faith; (the Masorites say twenty four books, count­ing Ruth apart from Iudges, and the Lamen­tations apart from Ieremy; and those that accounted Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, each two books, made the number of the Canonical books of the Old Testament full out twenty seven) and these books (saith he) were all written before the time of Artaxerxes; and as for those which were written after that time (as all that we call Apocrypha) he tells us they had not the same authority with the others, because when they were written, there was not so undoubted a succession of the prophets as had been ever before. [...]. So that though those other books came down in the Greek Bibles (if at least they were in them at that time, which is ve­ry questionable) yet they came not down as a part of the Canon, for that was the pe­culiar priviledge of those books alone, which had been written in Hebrew or Chal­dee, and deposited in the ark by the pro­phets. [Page 119] And indeed we do not read that the Jews would hazard their lives for any one book of all the Apocrypha, but towards the Ca­non they were so zealously affected, that as they embraced it for the Book of God, so they would not be divorced from it by any terrours of man. [...]. Euseb. l. 3. c. 10. ‘It is inbred in all the Jews from their very nativitie, to account their Testament the word of God, to stick close to it, and if need re­quire, willingly to dye for it.’

To this Canon of Scripture it is that St. Paul here appeals, calling it the Law and the Prophets; for so Christ himself had called it before, Saint Mat. 11. 13. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until Iohn: and again, S. Luke 16. 16. The Law, and the Prophets were until Iohn, that is, they were the Canon of the Scripture until John, but after that time there was to be another ac­cession to the Canon; & it is clear that nei­ther under the Law, nor under the Prophets did our blessed Saviour comprize any of the Apocryphal books, because none of them is quoted in all the New Testament, as pro­phesying [Page 120] of Christ, a truth not denied by those who stand most upon the credit of the Apocrypha; for even in the Greek Bi­bles printed at Paris by the authority of Pope Sixtus Quintus, at the end of the se­cond volume there is an Index of all the testimonies alledged in the New, out of the Old Testament, and not one of them is ta­ken out of any part of the Apocrypha.

But you will say, if this division be good of the Old Testament, into the Law and the Prophets, what is become of the books of the Kings, Chronicles, Iob, the Psalms, and all Solomons works, even of that whole third part of the Canon called by the Maso­rites [...]? for in Gen. 16. 5. The Ma­sor a divides the whole Testament into three parts, [...] The Law, the Prophets, and the holy writings.

I answer, They are included in these; for it is not imaginable that Saint Paul left them out of his Bible, although here he doth not expresly name them; and indeed, the whole Canon of the Old Testament is sometimes called the Law onely, sometimes the Prophets onely, sometimes both toge­ther, the Law and the Prophets. 1. The Canon of the Old Testament is sometimes cal­led [Page 121] the Law onely, as Neh. 8. 8. so they read in the book, in the law of God distinctly; where by the Law must be meant the whole Te­stament, unless we will say that the Jews in their captivity had contracted the heresie of the Samaritans, (whom they so much hated) to admit onely of the five books of Moses for their Bible.

2. The whole Canon of the Old Testa­ment is sometimes called the Prophets one­ly, as 2 Chron. 20. 20. Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his Prophets, so shall ye prosper: his Prophets, that is, his word, as it is recorded in his Book.

3. The whole Canon of the Old Testa­ment is sometimes called both together, the Law and the Prophets, as Saint Luke 16. 29. They have Moses (the pen-man of the Law) and the Prophets, that is, they have the written word of God, or Canon of the Text.

And those [...], those other books of the Bible are no less comprised in these two by Saint Paul, then they had been by our Saviour Christ before him; for indeed this was the most usual way of citing the Old Testament, to call it the Law and the [Page 122] Prophets; and there is but one place in the New Testament, that seems to confirm the Masorites division of the Old Testament in­to the Law and the Prophets, and holy wri­tings, and that we finde Saint Luke 24. 44. where our Blessed Saviour saith, That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him, where the Psalms are put for the [...], where­of they were but one, though a principal part.

The sum of all is this, there is a diffe­rence betwixt the substance and the exer­cise of Religion, that they may be separated in themselves; but the difference is not so great, that they may prudently and justly be separated by us, either in our profession, or in our practise; for we see plainly that St. Pauls profession and practise, contain in them the very substance of Religion, so that it is impossible for any man that disesteems the exercise of Religion, to have any high re­gard or esteem of the substance of it; and it is observable in the first table of the Deca­logue (which wholly concerns our duty to­wards God) that as the three first Com­mandments concern the substance of Rel­igion, [Page 123] so the fourth concerns the exercise of it.

The substance of Religion is nothing else but the knowledge and worship of God; for Abraham being strong in faith, gave glo­ry to God, Rom. 4. 29. whereby we may see and must confess, that faith, and conse­quently hope and charity do glorifie God as well as worship, though perchance not so publickly, yet sure as cordially, for they glorifie God in the inner, as worship and thanksgiving do glorifie him in the outer man; wherefore in these consists the sub­stance of Religion, whose work it is to glo­rifie God, either inwardly, which is com­manded in the first, or outwardly, which is commanded in the second and third com­mandments.

I say, that as the three first command­ments concern the substance of Religion, so the fourth wholly concerns the exercise of it: and as the first Commandment teacheth us the duties of faith, hope, and charity to­wards God; to believe in him, to fear him, and to love him with all our heart, with all our minde, with all our soul, and with all our strength; and the second and third, to worship him, to give him thanks, to call up­on [Page 124] him, to honour his holy name, and his word; so the fourth commandment setteth us a time (and other circumstances) for the exercise of these duties, teaching us to serve him truly in holiness and righteousness all the days of our life; for it is a gross mistake of some who make the fourth command­ment a limitation or a restriction of the first, as if he that required our love with all our heart (to shew that we ought sooner to be without our heart, then without his love) did require the publick profession of that love onely one day in seven; no, we must know and profess the contrary, for it is im­possible that the greater should be limited by the lesser, and our Saviour himself hath told us, that Thou shalt love the Lord, is the first and great commandment, Saint Mat. 20. 38. Wherefore all the rest which have their greatness from this, cannot add any great­ness to it, much less can they take away any greatness from it, and consequently the fourth commandment must needs lose its greatness, if it be brought to oppose this, that is to say, to confine this love of God by restraining the exercise of Religion to the Sabbath, as if Religion were made for the Sabbath, and not rather the Sabbath [Page 125] made for Religion; they who look upon Sunday as the onely Sabbath, do in effect say, That Religion was made for the Sab­bath; they who look upon other Festivals as Sabbaths also, do in effect say, That the Sabbath was made for Religion: and with­out doubt they are of the surer side (which is the drift we should aim at in all contro­verted points) who say, Days were made for duties, and not duties for days: for these men do say, That the substance of Religion is above the exercise of Religion (which God himself hath taught us in the very me­thod of the commandments, putting the greatest in the first place) and that the ex­ercise of Religion was ordained and appoint­ed to preserve and maintain the substance of Religion, but by no means to restrain or hinder the same. Therefore it is safest ex­plaining the fourth commandment, not by way of limitation or restriction, as if it limi­ted and restrained the three former to it self (which those men do seem to be guilty of, who put down all other Christian Festivals as unlawfull and superstitious) but by way of specification or application, as shewing the necessity of exercising that Religion which is taught and commanded in the three for­mer, [Page 126] and not leaving it in our power to omit or neglect that exercise.

This being laid for a sure ground, that we have Gods absolute command, not onely for the substance, but also for the exercise of Religion, it must needs follow that they who regard not the exercise of Religion, cannot regard the substance of it: and con­sequently, whosoever is unsetled in the ex­ercise of Religion (whether it be in the pro­fession or in the practise thereof) cannot be thought well grounded in the knowledge and love of God.

For Divinity is a science that teacheth man to live to God, and therefore he that most lives to God is the best Divine: the best scholar may be he that hath best order­ed his study, but the best Divine is he that best ordereth his life: and this Divinity St. Paul requireth alike of all Christians, who profess to believe in Christ, that they have a life answerable to their faith, a conversa­tion answerable to their profession. Rom. 6. 9. Knowing this, that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more, there's the principle of faith; and verse 11. Likewise reckon ye also your selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our [Page 127] Lord: there's the duty of life. He is the best Divine, he hath the most Christian Logick that most makes such collections: for Divi­nity treats onely of the spiritual life, where­by man lives in & to him, by whom he lives. And as the natural life hath two acts, the first [...], whereby it gives life; the second [...], whereby it gives motion: so hath also the spiritual life two acts; The first con­sists in the knowledge and love of God: the second in the profession of that knowledge, and in the practise of that love.

Of these two acts consisted Abrahams Religion, of these two parts consisted his Divinity; even of Faith in God, (as saith S. Paul) and of Works according to that Faith, as saith S. Iames; and if we hope to get into Abrahams bosome, we must first get into his study. This was Davids Divinitie, Psal. 37. 3. Trust in the Lord, there's the knowledge and love of God, (for no man will trust him whom he doth not know, and much less him whom he doth not love) and do good, there's the profession according to that knowledge, and practise according to that love; and we must be men after Davids heart, if we desire to be men after Gods own heart: In a word, This was the Divinity [Page 128] Christ left unto his Church, S. Matth. 28. 19, 20. First teaching all nations to know God, then teaching them to observe his commands: and we cannot be good Chri­stians unless we be members of Christs Church: and if we be good Christians, our faith will make us live in Christ, and our conversation will be according to our faith: which was the admirable prayer of the an­cient Church upon Ascension-eve, (and I cannot better conclude this discourse then with a prayer, nor have I learned to reject a good prayer, because I finde it in the Mass-Book, no more then I may learn not to say Eli, Eli, that is, my God, my God, with my blessed Saviour, because some out of igno­rance, others out of malice will say, This man calleth for Elias, S. Matth. 27. 46.) Praesta quaesumus omnipotens Pater, ut nostrae mentis intentio, quò Unigenitus Filius tuus, Dominus noster ingressus est, semper intendat; & quò side pergit, conversatione perveniat. ‘Grant Lord we beseech thee, that whi­ther our Saviour is ascended, we may also with heart and minde thither ascend; and whither we ascend by our faith, there we mayalso dwell by our conversation, even in Heaven.’

Amen.

CHAP. 5.

THat Religion is of a divine nature, and therefore partaketh of Gods proper­ties, both incommunicable and communicable, may be thought an impertinent discourse by some, because it deals in speculatives, and perchance an impious discourse by others, because it may seem to destroy practicks, and so joyn hands with the sacrilegious pro­faneness of this age, which trades wholly in destructives, not onely in regard of man, but also of God himself: Yet since the end of Religion is to bring man to God, it cannot be amiss to see how near the work thereof conduceth to that end: and it may be proper, if not necessary, to shew the ex­cellencies of Religion, that mens eyes being [Page 130] dazled with the admirable beauty, their hearts may be inflamed with the divine per­fections of holiness.

For Holiness and Religion are one and the same thing essentially, though they are dif­ferent in our apprehensions: therefore S. Pe­ter calling upon us to be religious, calleth upon us in these words, 1 S. Pet. 1. 15, 16. But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation: because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy: where it is evident, that we are called upon for holi­ness, from the Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the communi­on of God the holy Ghost: not onely by the authority of God the Father, [For it is written:] and by the example of God the Son, [But as he which hath called you is holy] but also by the communion of God the holy Ghost, [· Be ye holy, for I am holy:] as if he had said, Holiness can have no fellowship with impurity, therefore unless you will be holy, you must not onely renounce the au­thority of God commanding, the example of God conducting, but also the fellowship of God conversing and communicating with you: For the force of the argument consists in the proper nature of God, and our relati­on [Page 131] to and with God. Accordingly I cannot better shew the excellencies of Religion, then by shewing how near its holiness comes to the very nature and essence of God him­self, and then none will doubt but the An­gelical Doctour did rightly say, Nomen san­ctitatis duo videtur importare, Munditiem & firmitatem, that holiness imports two things, purity: (for so [...] is one far removed from the corruptions of the earth) and constancie, (for so sanctum or sancitum, & lege firmatum are all one) and there is an absolute neces­sity of both these in that man that will be truly religious: for he that will be joyned to the most High, must be far removed from the things below, there's the purity; and he that will be joyned to the first Beginning and last End, (which is wholly immoveable) must be firm and immoveable in his con­junction, there's the constancy. There­fore saith the Apostle, Rom. 8. 38. Certus sum quòd neque mors neque vita separabit me à charitate Dei: ‘I am sure and certain (not onely I am perswaded) that neither death, nor life shall be able to separate me from the love of God.’ He that knows it is all one to love Religion and to love God, will never be separated from its love: and he [Page 132] that knows Religion to be the service of God, will easily acknowledge, that such as is the master, such is his service.

And therefore all Divines agree in this, that one and the same true Divinity, but some have likewise said, that one and the same commandment (making the first and second but one) doth teach us the true knowledge of God, and of Religion the proper service of God; for Religion is no­thing else but the immediate worship of God; Religio distinctiùs,, non quemlibet, sed Dei cultum significat, (saith S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 1.) If we say, Worship, we may possibly mean a civil or a moral worship: but if we say Religion, we can mean no other but Divine worship, or the immediate worship of God. And therefore there is no one attribute of God, but shews in some sort the nature of the true Religi­on; for such as God is in Himself, such also is the Religion that serveth and pleaseth Him.

I will accordingly endeavour (with Gods grace) to shew the nature of Religion from the very nature of God, yet with such a me­thod as shall not seek to satisfie the curious by its exactness, but onely to establish the [Page 133] conscientious by its godliness, always re­membring, that when God shews a mortal man his glory, (as he did to Moses, Exod. 33. 23. though he may see much, yet much more there is which cannot be seen; nor can any Divine whatsoever see so much of God as he doth desire, nor can he express so much as he doth see: It is enough therefore if I draw such a scheme of Gods attributes, as is fittest to instruct my self and others in the nature of true godliness.

God is a Spirit, and so is his service alto­gether spiritual, S. John 4. 24. God is a Spi­rit, and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth. There must be nothing in his worship of carnal inventions, and much less of carnal affections; for to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace, Rom. 8. 6. wherein we have described in few words the true and the false Religion; the one is spiritual, the other carnal; they are both described, 1. In themselves [to be minded] for religion calls for the soul, whether we serve God or Mam­mon; 2. In their causes, the cause of the one is flesh, of the other spirit. 3. In their effects, the effect of the one is life, and the assurance of it, peace; the effect of the o­ther [Page 134] is death: Religion then it self is to be minded, it always engageth the soul, and the true Religion is to be spiritually minded, ea­gaging the soul according to the dictates of Gods holy Spirit. And indeed Religion hath the chiefest properties of a spirit; For

1. A spirit is invisible and imperceptible by the sense: so is the true Religion, the na­tural man perceives it not, 1 Cor. 2. 14. and S. Paul calleth the things of Religion spiri­tual things, Rom. 15. 27. The Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, and 1 Cor. 9. 11. If we have sowen unto you spiritual things. Take heed then of a carnal eye in Gods worship, that loves to look upon an image; but much more of a carnal affe­ction, that loves to look upon it self.

2. A spirit hath life in it self, and giveth life unto the body: so Religion hath life in it self, and giveth life to those that are reli­gious, S. John 17. 3. This is life eternal, that they may know thee the onely true God, and Ie­sus Christ whom thou hast sent. The true knowledge of God in Christ, (which cannot be without a practise answerable to it) is the true Religion, and that is life eternal, both formally in it self, and effectually in regard of us. Christ is not onely the truth, but also [Page 135] the life, S. John 14. 6. And so also are his words, S. Iohn 6. 63. The words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life: no parting Christs words from Spirit, nor Spi­rit from life; and again verse 68. Thou hast the words of eternal life. Let nothing go for Christs word which is not spirit and life, and so spirit as to give life: wherefore if you see a Religion a fraught with beads, pictures, cru­cifixes, and such outward ordinances, be a­fraid of it; for these and the like are mens carnal inventions, meer carnal images; this is not Religion but superstition: Again, if you see a Religion fraught with envy, ma­lice, hatred, uncharitableness, spiritual pride, perversness, profaneness, licentiousness, dis­obedience, novelty, singularity, be afraid of it; for these and such like are mens carnal practises, carnal imaginations; this is not Religion, but faction, such as the Apostle casteth down, 2 Cor. 10. 5. And the pro­phet seems to prophesie against, Ier. 43. 13. For what are the images of the house of the sun amongst us, but the humorous imaginations of those that abuse the light of the Gospel? And this trial or proof of the true Religion is substantial, it concerns the very nature and essence of it; even as to be a spirit, is the ve­ry [Page 136] nature and substance of God; there are other proofs that are also essential proofs of the true Religion, though they be not ta­ken from the substance of God, but from his properties, and so that is the truest Religi­on, whose properties come nearest to the properties of God. I will give you a short scheme of both together, that seeing God himself in your Religion, you may love it with all your soul, with all your minde, and with all your strength, because so you are bound to love your God.

God cannot be known any further in his substance, then that he is a Spirit; and so accordingly is the substance of the true Re­ligion, wholly spiritual: But the greatest knowledge we have of God (the onely eter­nal Spirit) is by his properties, and by his at­tributes: his properties are internal perfe­ctions belonging to him as a Spirit meerly in regard of himself, as Simplicity, Immuta­bility, and the like; his attributes are as it were external perfections belonging to him in regard of his creatures, as he is the God of the spirits of all flesh, as Mercy, Justice, Libera­lity, and the like; or if you desire not to distinguish between Gods properties and his attributes, you may say, that the properties [Page 137] of God are either such as remove from him all kinde of imperfection that is in the crea­ture, as Simplicity, which removes from him composition; Immutability, which removes from him Changeableness; Immensity and eternity, which remove from him Circum­scription or Confinement, the one of place, the other of time; and these are called in­communicable properties, because they are not communicable to any creature; Or the properties of God are such as do assign to God all manner of perfection, First, in his understanding; as Wisdome and Truth. Se­condly, In his will, as Goodness and Liberty. Thirdly, In his power of action, as Omnipo­tency; and these are called communicable properties, because they are communicated to the creature, and are to be found in the creature, though in a proportion and perfe­ction infinitely short of what is in the Crea­tour God blessed for ever: Thus angels and men have Truth, and Goodness, and Power, though not an Unerring truth, not an All­sufficient goodness, not an Almighty power; but they have not Simplicity, Infinity, Im­mutability, Eternity, which are the incom­municable properties.

And herein consists the supereminencie [Page 138] of the true Religion above any creature whatsoever, that it shareth even in these in­communicable properties of God, even in his Simplicity, Infinity, Immutability, Eter­nity.

And first it shares in his Simplicity: now the Simplicity of the divine essence is such, that it admits of no composition at all, nei­ther Physical composition of matter and form; nor Logical, of subject, and accident; nor Metaphysical, of act and power; where­as the purest spirits that are admit of Logical and Metaphysical composition, though not of Physical, God onely excepted, who ad­mits of neither, So Aquinas pr. part. qu. 40. Propter divinam Simplicitatem est duplex identitas in divinis, eorum quae in rebus crea­tis differunt; quia enim illa excludit composi­tionem subjecti & accidentis, quicquid attri­buitur Deo est ejus essentia; quia autem ex­cludit compositionem formae & materiae, in di­vinis idem est abstractum & concretum; ‘Be­cause of the simplicity of the divine es­sence; there is a twofold identity in God, which is not in any creature; First, an identity of essence and attributes, because there is in him no composition of sub­stance and accident, Secondly, an identi­ty [Page 139] of abstract and concrete, because there is in him no composition of form and mat­ter;’ and all action proceeding from form, it is evident that he who is the agent in and of himself, can be nothing else but a pure form without any mixture of any matter, Nam quod est primò & per se agens, patet quòd sit primò & per se forma, 1 par. qu. 3. art. 2. So likewise Religion admits of no composi­tiou, but must still remain in its own Simpli­city; for

1. There is in Religion no Physical com­position of matter and form, some will make Decency the accidental form of Religion; others the Evangelical counsels the essential form and perfection of it, but both are mi­staken; for the same holiness is the Religi­on of the Christian, that was of the Jew, though not the same beauty of holiness: There is no separating the essential matter of Religion, from the essential form of it; and what is not intrinsecally holy, that is, both materially and formally, cannot properly be said to be a substantial part of Religion. Some look upon faith, hope, and charity as the formal part, upon the other duties of the Decalogue as the material part of Reli­gion, but indeed such considerations are [Page 140] meerly notional, they are not real; for no man can reject an article of faith, but he must also reject a commandment; nor can a­ny man wrong any commandment, but he must also wrong an article of faith; thus can you not expunge or deprave any command­ment that contains your duty towards God, but you must expunge or deprave some ar­ticle of faith concerning him: so also of the second table, he that depraves any one of those commandments, depraves those arti­cles of faith that concern the Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints. Lastly, he that denies or depraves that part of Gods law which concerns himself, with­out any relation to his neighbour, doth also deny or deprave some of those articles of faith that concern himself, as The forgive­ness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

As for example, you cannot think that any common drunkard or unclean person doth so much as seriously consider, much less truly believe the Resurrection of his bo­dy, which he doth continually defile with with his intemperances and uncleanness. And this truth being granted, which is not to be denied, and scarce to be disputed, it [Page 141] must needs follow, that 'tis impossible there should be an absolute infallibility of Faith in any man, till there be in him an absolute im­peccabilitie of life: for from the corruption in manners, will proceed the corruption in doctrine; and from corruption in doctrine, corruption in manners; so that the doctrine cannot be the form, and the duty the matter of Religion, since the false doctrine corrupts the duty, and the defective duty corrupts or depraves the doctrine, and we must allow the substance of Religion to be altogether incorruptible: and because there can be in it no corruption, 'tis evident there is in it no Physical composition.

Secondly, There is in Religion no Logical composition ex subjecto & accidente: for no part of it but is substantial and essential: Faith can no more save without good works, then good works can be without faith: It seems the man had faith, who came running to kneel to our blessed Saviour, and to ask him, What he should do to inherit eternal life, (sure a better faith then any of our Solifidi­ans have, who neither run, nor kneel, nor ask) yet our Saviours answer is, Thou know­est the commandments: (S. Mark 10.) He saith not, Thou knowest the faith in Christ, [Page 142] and yet without doubt he included it; but so it is, Christ himself teaching us to go to heaven by obedience, doth plainly shew, there can be no true faith without it; and Bona opera sunt perniciosa ad salutem, is a most pernicious & blasphemous doctrine, though Amsdortius broach'd it out of zeal to the doctrine of Justification by faith in Christ, and out of opposition to the merit of con­dignity in good works: for 'tis not the right way to build up faith by pulling down obedience, since the Apostle himself telleth us, that the truth of the Gospel was made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, Rom. 16. 26. and 'tis evident, that faith it self is an act of obedience, and a du­ty enjoyned in the first commandment; so that we cannot take away faith from obedi­ence, but we must take away obedience from the first and great commandment, that most requires it; which will not be so much as good Judaisme, and therefore sure cannot be good Christianity: for the Jews did of purpose in their doctrine, as it were, entangle the commandments one with another, to shew that one could not be violated alone, and that our obedience was alike due to all: therefore did they teach, that the preface, [Page 431] I am the Lord thy God, was directly on the other side answered by the sixth command­ment, Thou shalt do no murder: for he that kills a man, destroys the image of God. The first commandment it self, Thou shalt have no other gods but me, was directly an­swered by the seventh, Thou shalt not commit adultery: for idolatrie is a spiritual fornicati­on. The third, (for it seems they looked on the second as included in the first) Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, was answered by the eighth, Thou shalt not steal: for he that will be a thief, will not stick to forswear himself. The fourth, Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day: was answered by the ninth, Thou shalt not bear false witness: for he that will not keep the sabbath, doth bear false witness of God, that he did not rest on the seventh day. The fifth, Honour thy father and thy mother, was answered and as it were seconded by the tenth, Thou shalt not covet: for he that gives the reins to his concupiscence, shall beget a son that shall dishonour and disobey him, (Salomom Iarchi in Cantic. cap. 4. v. 5.) Thus did they make one commandment not onely as a second, to vindicate and a­venge; but also as a principle champion, to [Page 144] fortifie and strengthen another, that we should pay the readier obedience to them all: for they did not this to confound our dutie towards God, and our duty towards our neighbour; but to shew, that though these several duties might be distinguished, yet they might not be divided nor separated: for that no one commandment of the Mo­ral Law was accidental, but all alike substan­tial in that obedience which God doth now require, and will hereafter reward; so that there is no composition of Subject and Ac­cident in Religion.

Thirdly and lastly, There is in Religion no Metaphysical composition ex actu & po­tentia, of act and power: for though this Metaphysical composition is in the Angels, yet 'tis not in Religion: 'Tis in the Angels, for they have not all their essence and per­fection together, but as it were successively, some after other: so that in this respect Re­ligion hath a prerogative above the Angels, (and therefore may not stoop down so low as to worship them) for that hath its whole perfection altogether; the Old & the New Testament differing onely in modo, not in re; for the same Faith, Hope, and Charity saved Abraham that still saveth us: and [Page 145] hence it is evident, that all is either supersti­tion of faction, which cannot consist and be maintained without addition to the text, the onely rule of Religion, though it pretend not to be addition, but onely exposition or declaration: As for example; When Christ hath said, Drink ye all of this; that the Laity or Clergy not administring are not bound to drink of it, may pretend to be a declaration of the Church, (Ecclesia declarat, nullo di­vino praecepto, Laicos aut Clericos non confici­entes, ad bibendum obligari: Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. cap. 1.) but it is indeed a deprava­tion of the truth by way of addition: Again, when God hath said, Thou sh'alt not worship any graven image; for any man to say, Thou shalt not worship the graven image of Venus, or Bacchus, or Jupiter; but thou mayst worship the image of Christ, and of the saints, seems to be a declaration, but is indeed a down right depravation by way of addition; and yet this is the fleight where­by Baronius endeavours to elude the second commandment: and why may not we as well say, Thou shalt not kill, that is, Thou shalt not kill a Romane Catholick; but thou mayst kill an heretick? Thou shalt not steal; that is, Thou shalt not assault or [Page 146] invade the property of a brother, one of the godly party; but thou mayst of one that is a malignant, or a reprobate, and yet not be guilty of stealing? In a word, to instance in the fifth commandment, which hath been alike trampled upon by the two grand facti­ons of Christendome; Honour thy father and thy mother, saith God; that is, If he be not an heretick, saith the one side; for then he may be excommunicated, deposed, and killed: If he be not a reprobate, saith the other side; for then he may be dishonour­ed, and disobeyed, and destroyed: for ha­ving no share in grace, he hath no right to dominion. Both these grand factions from several principles inferring one and the same conclusion, because both by their additi­ons deprave the truth of the Text: so that if we will needs allow that our glosses may be additions to the rule, we must of necessi­ty overthrow the rule, and by not allowing Religion to be all-together at once, we shall come to make it none at all.

It is not to be denied but Religion hath had, and may have additions in regard of men, but not in regard of it self; Si de pro­phetia loquamur, in quantum ordinaturadfidem Deitatis, sic quidem crevit secundùm tres tem­porum [Page 147] distinctiones, scil. ante Legem, sub Le­ge, & sub Gratia; non autem quatenus per eam humanum genus in suis operibus dirigitur, saith Aquinas 22^ae. qu. 174. art. 6. Pro­phesie may be said to have received increase as to Articles of Faith towards God; for he hath revealed himself more fully under the Gospel, then under the Law; and more fully under the Law, then before it; but not as to duties of life, either towards God or towards man. The Christian knows and beleevs more then the Jew, because Christ is more fully revealed unto him then to the Jew, but yet Christ is still the same to both, The same yesterday, and to day, and for ever, Heb. 13. 8. The same before the Law, [yester­day;] Under the Law, [to day;] and un­der the Gospel, [for ever.] One Christian may know and beleeve more then another, nay more then himself; for as he increaseth in years, so also in knowledge and faith; yet the truth of the Christian Religion is but one and the same at all times, onely more fully understood at one time then at ano­ther: for which reason God requires a pre­paration of minde in every true beleever, to be ready to beleeve more when it shall be re­vealed to him to be Gods truth; and to do [Page 148] more, when it shall appear to him to be for Gods glory.

The first part of this position concludes it impossible that there should be any certain catalogue of the fundamentals of Faith, not onely for all men, but also for one and the same man at all times, because that may be revealed to one which is not to another; nay to one man at this time, which was not at that time. The second part of this po­sition concludes it necessary, that the Evan­gelical Counsels should sometimes become a piece of the Law; namely, If the case be put that a man can in any of those particu­lars of Voluntary poverty, Obedience, or Chastity, shew or exercise more fully and sincerely his love of God: and therefore saith S. Hieroms gloss upon S. Matth. 19. 20. ‘All these things have I kept from my youth up; Mentitur adolescens, The young man lies; for if he had indeed kept this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self, he would not have been grieved for being com­manded to sell all and give it to the poor, no more then he was grieved for keeping all unto himself.’ And Origen tells us, it was written in some other Gospel that he had met withall in Hebrew (but sure not of [Page 149] sufficient authority to discountenance the Greek: for Aquinas that tells us this storie, saith, Si placeat alicui suscipere illud, If any man please to receive it) ‘That when the young man began to scratch his head at this saying, the Lord replied unto him, How doest thou say, thou hast kept the Law, which requireth to love thy neigh­bour as thy self, and behold many of thy brethren, the children of Abraham, are ready to die for hunger upon the dung-hill, whiles not onely thy bodie, but also thy house is full even to super­fluitie?’ (Aquin. 22^ae. qu. 189. art. 1. resp. ad 1.) We must therefore say with Gu­lielmus de sancto Amore, in libro de periculis Ecclesiae. Paupertatem praecipit, non actualem sed habitualem; scil. si gloria Christi id postu­lârit, ut cùm ait Luc. 14. 26. Si quis venit ad me, & non odit patrem, non potest esse meus discipulus; non praecipit parentes contemnere, sed tantùm si Christo se opponant: ‘That this is not a counsel, but a command, where­by our blessed Saviour commandeth, though not actual, yet habitual povertie; though not a real, yet a ready forsaking of all, if the glory of Christ should so require; as when he saith, (S. Luk. 14. 26. [Page 150] If any man come to me, and hateth not his father, he cannot be my disciple: the com­mand is but conditional, to wit, If his fa­ther oppose his Saviour, there he must go from the one, to come and cleave to the other.’ And so Aquinas himself states this question, saying, Nullus est actus per­fectionis sub consilio cadens, qui in aliquo even­tu non cadat sub praecepto, quasi de necessitate salutis existens: (22 [...]e. qu. 124. art. 3. ad 1.) ‘There is no act of perfection under an Evangelical Counsel, but may in some case fall under a precept, as being necessa­ry to that mans salvation.’ And in this particular case of voluntary poverty, he saith thus, Abrenunciatio propriarum facul­tatum in actu, est quoddam perfectionis instru­mentum, sed secundùm praeparationem animi pertinet directè ad perfectionem: (22^ae. qu. 185. ad 2.) ‘For a man to renounce his property actually (that he may betake himself wholly to meditation and prayer) doth conduce instrumentally to perfecti­on; but for him to renounce it potential­ly in the preparation of his minde, doth appertain directly to perfection; that is, to the perfection of Christianitie:’ and so in effect he saith thus much, He that will [Page 151] not part with his estate when Christ calls for it, is far from shewing himself a good Christian. How little this precept is now observed by those who see their poor bre­thren readie to starve for Christ, both at home and in forein countreys, and yet nei­ther lay their miseries to heart, nor lay their hands to their relief, Christ doth now see, and will hereafter judge, when he will not onely say, Depart ye cursed, to those that made them hungry, thirsty, and naked, but also to those that let them continue so, St. Mat. 25. 41, 42. and good reason, for such men forget their brother Ioseph in the pit, sitting down to eat and drink, while he is ready to perish; they forget themselves, and renounce their own bowels; they forget their God, and renounce his command­ments, not onely as enforced by right of do­minion (for being Lord of all, he might call for all, without shewing any other cause for it) but also as being enforced by the light of reason: for it is observable that Saint Paul useth more arguments to stir up the Corin­thians to a liberal contribution for the poor Saints at Jerusalem, then he useth to the stirring them up to any other Christian du­ty whatsoever; for he hath concerning this [Page 152] duty almost two whole chapters together, 2 Cor. 8, and 9, chap. and almost as many arguments as verses in those chapters, I will touch upon the chiefest of them, either to fill our hearts with charity and compassion, if we will be Christians; or to fill our faces with shame, if we will at the same time be both unchristian and uncharitable.

The Topick of his first argument is ab exemplo, the example of the Macedonians, cap. 8. ver. 2. That their deep poverty aboun­ded to the riches of their liberality, their po­verty hath made them rich in good works, shall our riches make us poor in them? v. 3. Beyond their power they were willing of them­selves, and shall no exhortation make our willingness answerable to our power? v. 4. Praying us with much entreaty to receive the gift, in the Greek it is to receive the grace; they accounted it as a grace or favour to re­lieve others, and shall we account it as a bur­den? they did beseech Saint Paul to re­ceive, and shall not he beseech us to give? they looked on this charity as a ministring to the Saints, and a professing themselves to be of their communion, shall we neglect it, & yet be thought either to regard or beleeve the Communion of Saints? And v. 5 He [Page 153] sets down the reason that moved them to this bountifulness, They had given them­selves to the Lord, and could not stick at giving of their estates to his members: and consequently may it not justly be inferred, He that will not give of his estate to his poor brother, hath not yet given himself unto the Lord? again, v. 7. Ye cannot shew (saith he) that you abound in faith, and other spiritual gifts, unless you abound in this grace also: and v. 8. This is the onely way to prove the sincerity of your love: v. 9. The onely way to follow the foot­steps of Christ, and to shew our thankful­ness to him, for emptying himself, that he might fill us. v. 10. 'Tis expedient for you; (more profitable for you then for them) v. 12. 'Tis acceptable to God. v. 14. 'Tis a­greeable to justice, which loves equalitie a­mong Christians, that as your liberalitie supplyes their temporal, so their prayers may supply your spiritual wants. Again, in the ninth chapter, he insisteth altogether upon the same exhortation: as v. 5. That he had sent Titus of purpose to make up be­fore-hand their bounty; so we translate it, be­cause it was so in respect of their distressed brethren; but the Greek saith [...], [Page 154] your blessing, and so it was in respect of themselves: and accordingly the Apostle quotes a verse out of the 112 Psalm, which beginneth with a blessing upon him that practiseth this duty, as the onely man that fears God; and 'tis such a blessing as shall never come to an end; for he saith, His righ­teousness remaineth for ever: and well it may, for it is nothing else but a sowing seed to immortality; such a sowing of seed as shall return an infinite increase; first, to them­selves, Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness: secondly, to their poor bre­thren, It supplieth the want of the saints. thirdly, to God, but is abundant also by ma­ny thanks givings to God: whence Beza most excellently, Piis hominibus beneficentia est pro omnibus latifundiis; ‘A true godly man looks upon his liberality as his best patrimony;’ for keeping his wealth, makes him rich onely towards himself, but giving it to others makes him rich also to­wards God.

I should here ask pardon for this digressi­on, (though consisting of the most need­full doctrine for this hard-hearted and close-handed age) but that S. Paul hath said, Charity is the fulfilling of the Law, Rom. 13. [Page 155] 10. and our Saviour Christ hath said, That to fulfill the Law, is to fulfill all righteousness, S. Matth. 3. 15. so that charity alone is in effect, all righteousness: and that discourse may not be called a digression from religion, which directly leads to righteousness. But yet to return more closely to my present purpose, I say, Religion received no new essential perfection from the Gospel, which before it had not in the Law: for though faith is imperfect, and did admit increase in several ages of the Church, and may still admit increase till it come to vision; and though charity is imperfect, and must admit of increase till it come to fruition, yet the rule both of faith and charity was not per­fect from the first beginning: so that the perfection of Religion is tota simul, altoge­ther at once, righteousness being immortal, and having that priviledge of immortality or eternity, that it is always present to it self; for there was nothing left out in the first in­stitution of it; what is substantially Religion now to us, was so to our first father Adam; but we need not go so far back: 'tis enough for Christians to look for the foundation of their Religion from Christ and his Apostles: I say therefore more particularly, That what [Page 156] is actually Religion now, was so in the Apo­stles times; what was then potentially Reli­gion, is so still, notwithstanding any declara­tion of the Church, and all those additional doctrines which Pope Pius the I V hath an­nexed to the Niceno-Constantinopolitane Creed, and which the Clergy of Rome is still sworn to maintain and propagate as the Ca­tholick faith, without which none can be saved, are no more articles of faith now, then they were in the Apostles days; as Traditions, Seven Sacraments, The sacrifice of the Mass for quick and dead, Transubstantiation, Pur­gatory, The invocation of Saints, The wor­shipping of images, The use of Indulgences, and that the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all Churches, (vide Cheru­binum in Bullario, Bulla 88. Pii Quarti.) These and the like tenents of the present Church of Rome, either were articles of faith to the Apostles, or cannot be so to us, unless we will divide the Catholick from the A­postolick faith: and accordingly Baronius makes it his master-piece, to perswade the world, that what ever is now in the belief or practise of the present Romane Church, and is rejected by the Protestants, was all beleeved and practised by the Church in or [Page 457] near the Apostles times: and this makes him drain in all the chief controversies of the Protestants and Papists into the first hundred years of his History; and that makes him so bitter against the Protestants in the first Tome of his Annals (though their name was unknown to the Church above 1400 years after) laying aside the Hi­storian, that he may put on the Dogmatist. And so much for the Simplicity of Religion, wherein it partakes of the first of Gods in­communicable properties.

The second incommunicable propertie of God is his Immensity or Infinity, whereby he is Omnipresent and Incomprehensible, and it is nothing else but as it were an excess of spi­rituality or immateriality: For all material substances are in their own natures circum­scriptible and boundable, not so the spiritu­al and immaterial substances; they are not to be circumscribed or confined terminis lo­calibus, sed terminis essentialibus: no spirit can be confined to or by the bounds of any place, though all spirits are confined to and by the limited bounds of their own essence, save onely one, which is the God of spirits: He acknowledgeth not any bounds of es­sence, cannot confine himself, much less [Page 158] doth he acknowledge any bounds of place, to be confined by another. And this bound­less Infinity of God, appears in three re­spects, for God may be said to be infinite or incomprehensible three manner of ways, Cogitatione nostrâ, Essentiâ suâ, Communica­tione essentiae; in our apprehension, in his own essence, in the communication of his essence.

1. Cogitatione nostrâ, God may be said to be infinite and incomprehensible in our apprehensions: as 1 Cor. 2. 9. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entred into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. From whence we cannot but argue thus, Si non Divina, multò minùs ipse Deus; If not the things God hath prepared, have entred into the heart of man, much less God himself that prepared them. Hence Aquinas de­nies, that any created understanding can see the essence of God by a vision of com­prehension, (1. par. qu. 12. ar. 1.) the reason is, because his Infinity makes him in­comprehensible: and truly for our parts we must confess, that we rather know of God what he is not, then what he is, so far are we from fully knowing him. And so is it al­so [Page 159] with Religion, we cannot know it at all, till God hath enlarged our souls; and after that enlargement we cannot know it per­fectly, for if we could, (admirabilis amoris excitaret sui) we should be so in love with it, as to love and desire nothing else: for so it is with the Saints and Angels in heaven, who fully knowing the excellency of loving and praising God, can do nothing else but love and praise him.

2. Essentiâ suâ: God may be said to be infinite in his own essence and being: and this Infinity of God is evidenced in his Omnipresence or Ubiquity, whereby he is so present here, as to be present every where: and this belongs not to Angels, no nor yet to the glorified body of Christ, though united to his Deity; for a bodie cannot lose its property, which is to be in a place; but it must also lose it self, and no longer remain a body. But this doth in some sort belong to Religion: for what is spoken of Christs coming to judgement, may also be fitly spoken of his coming into the soul of man: (S. Matth. 24. 27.) As the lightning cometh out of the East, and shineth even unto the West; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. And indeed this alone [Page 160] is it which both makes & proves the Church to be Universal or Catholick, because the Spirit whereby it is quickened & governed, hath this ubiquity. S. John 3. 8. The winde bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it co­meth, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit: Spiritus spirat ubi vult: The Spirit breatheth where it listeth, is not confined to a corner in Africa, as said the Donatists; nor to a chair at Rome, as saith the Papist; nor to a Family of Love, as saith the Catharist: and this argument alone is able to evince, That Religion is of God, not of man, because of its Universal pre­sence: for such have been the distempers of men, that there is now scarce any one vi­sible Church in the Christian world, which will allow any true Religion out of its own communion; and what men do not easily allow, they do easily wish; so that not to allow it to be so, is in effect to wish it were not so: and consequently, If Religion did depend upon the will of man for its enlarge­ment, it would in short time be confined to a very narrow compass of the world: But blessed be God, it is far otherwise, and we may say of Religion, as the Schole hath [Page 161] said of God the Authour of it, it is every where by its essence, and by its power, and by its presence: by its essence, to fill the soul, and to enlarge the heart: by its pow­er, to over-rule the affections, and by its presence, to overlook and guide the actions: and as Religion is thus always present to us, (though few take notice of it) so the Reli­gious man is always present to himself, the good Christian imitating his Saviour Christ, who is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Semper eadem may be the Motto of the soul that is truly Religious, though not as to its action, (for even our prayers are not always the same, though our necessities are, but sometimes with greater, sometimes with lesser fervency) yet as to its resolution: a sanctified man always resolves for the best, though he doth not always perform what he resolves; and he is always ready to give an answer of the hope that is in him, if you look upon him in his resolution, though if you look upon him in his action, he may sometimes scarce seem to have any hope of eternity, or if he have, may seem not to re­gard that hope. Wherefore it is best for us to believe that Religion is always present to it self, and always present with us, calling [Page 162] upon us to fear God and to keep his command­ments; for this belief will make God him­self always present with us, to sanctifie us here, and to save us hereafter, and will make us delight in the presence of his grace, till we come to enjoy the presence of his glory. Thus the Apostle saith, that our blessed Saviour hath undertaken to present us holy, unblameable and unreprovable in the sight of God. Col. 1. 22. [...], to make us stand by in a readiness; and Saint Iude recom­mends all faithfull souls to him that is able to present them faultless, v. 24. [...], to make them stand in his presence, he will not make them stand there who do not care to appear there; what we most love, we most willingly fancy as present with us: so he that truly loves God, most wishes his presence, [...], there is a great reverence which belongs to the presence of a man that overlooks us, much more to the watchfull eye of eternity, the Sun of righte­ousness, and his overlooking countenance, and over-spreading light; if shame will not let us offend against a man on whom we can have but an accidental dependance for a temporal and momentany being, how much more will it keep us from offending against [Page 163] God, on whom we have an essential depen­dance both of our being and of our well be­ing for ever? [...], eye-service to men is forbidden, Eph. 6. 6. because our masters on earth cannot be always present with us, so that eye-service to man is but meer hypo­crisie and dissimulation; but it is not so to­wards God our master in heaven, who is al­ways present with us, so that the best way to serve him cordially is to serve him with eye­service, considering that he always looks up­on us; and therefore we ought always to act as in his presence. Excellently the Casuist Reiginaldus, Adjumenta operandi bonum in or­dine ad nosipsos, sunt, consider are Christum ut, mandantem, spectantem, adjuvantem; ‘The main helps that encourage any man in re­gard of himself to do that which is good, is the consideration of Christs presence, as if he were actually standing by him, to command, to observe, and to assist him, that he commands me to obey, observes me in my obedience, and assists me in o­beying:’ whosoever truly hath this con­sideration of Christ, cannot but have his heart full of true Christianity, and he that hath his heart full, cannot have his mouth or his hand empty; for out of the aboun­dance [Page 164] of the heart not onely the mouth speak­eth, but also the hand acteth and work­eth.

But Gods Infinitie though it most appear to us in his Omnipresence, yet is it the imme­diate property of his essence, which being a pure act or form, admits of no materiality to limit and to confine it: and so also are the duties of Religion in some sort infinite in their very essence; for nothing is proporti­onable to God, but what is infinite and like himself; and therefore it is said, Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is per­fect, St. Mat. 5. 48. God justly requires a perfection of degrees in all duties of Religion, though he graciously accepts a perfection of parts; it is well for us that the truth and sincerity, not the measure and degree of our faith or repentance puts us in the state of salvation, for else we should not onely be always doubtfull of that state, but also very often come short of it: and yet in truth our faith, and repentance, and obedience is infi­nite as it is in Gods acceptance, though not as it is in our performance; for though it be performed in much unrighteousness, yet it is accepted in an infinite righteousness, even the righteousness of the eternal Son of God.

[Page 165] 3. Communicatione essentiae, Thirdly and lastly God may be said to be infinite in the communication of his essence, which he hath communicated in an infinite variety to infinite sorts of creatures, which all have their being onely from him. So also Reli­gion is infinite in this respect, that it can ne­ver be enough communicated: he that is truly converted himself, will make it his whole work to strengthen his brethren, ac­cording to that advice of our blessed Savi­our, St. Luke 22. 32. which having been gi­ven to St. Peter in his own person, cannot but more peculiarly belong to all his succes­sours, then many things else that are more zealously claimed by most of them: and how then may the Scriptures be denied to the people in a tongue they know, or pray­ers be obtruded to them in a tongue they know not, since the Scripture communicates Religion from God to man, and prayer ex­presseth the desire of that heavenly com­munion? Wherefore that of the Trent Council, Sess. 22. cap. 8. Nè tamen oves Christi esuriant, pastores frequenter aliquid in missâ exponant, &c. ‘Least the flock of Christ should be hunger-starved, the pri [...]st ought often to expound the missal,’ is in ef­fect [Page 166] a tacit Confession, that though Reli­gion ought to be effectually communicated to the people, to feed their souls unto the full; yet they are resolved it must not be so, but that they shall still wholly depend upon the priests for a little broken bread; where­as all that know good to be naturally diffu­sive of it self, most willingly acknowledge, that Religion the greatest good of this world, and the onely practise of the next, the more it hath of goodness, the more it ought to have likewise of the diffusion.

The third incommunicable property of God is his Immutability; for as God chan­geth not in his essence, I AM hath sent me unto you, Exo. 3. 14. so he changeth not in his government or dominion of souls, I am the Lord, I change not, Mal. 3. 6. he changeth not as our Lord, and we cannot pretend to change as his servants; for Religion hath also its share in this Immutability; in which sense I perswade my self Iustin Martyr cal­led Abraham a Christian, and Socrates too, though a heathen, yet observing some of that righteousness, all which we Christians do or should observe: and he proves that the Christian Religion is that whereby God was then, and is now truly worshipped and [Page 167] glorified: what the heathen had of idols, they had of Paganisme, what of moral du­ties or of reasonable service, they had of Christianity; (for there is no reason why the martyrs [...], may not agree with the Apostles [...], Rom. 12. 1. So like­wise the Iews and the Christians have the same Religion in substance, though not in ceremonies or circumstance, or the old Te­stament could not be brought so appositely to prove the doctrines of the New: (or Mo­ses have been said to bear the reproach of Christ, Heb. 11. 26.) and so likewise all Chri­stians have one and the same Religion, though they have many different professi­ons; the Christian Religion being altogether unchangeable, one and the same in all pla­ces and at all times, and what is otherwise will be found either to be superstition, or fa­ction, or matter of order, but in no case matter of Religion, it being impossible that what is truly Christian in one place or time, should be made either Antichristian or Unchristian in another. And this property of Immutability Religion partakes in a high­er degree then the sublimest spirit in the highest order of Angels; for they are all changeable by a power without them, [Page 168] though not by a power within them: but Religion is not so, God himself cannot make another Religion or service of him­self, then that which he hath already made, I mean as to the substantial and internal na­ture of holiness, consisting in the immediate duties of Religion: Aliquid dicitur mutabile dupliciter, uno modo per potentiam quae in ipso est, altero modo per potentiam quae est in altero. Aquin. par. 1. qu. 9. what is absolutely un­changeable cannot be changed by any pow­er, either within or without it self: so is God, so is the service of God, Religion, which God cannot change no more then he can change himself, that is, no more then he can change his truth that taught it, his justice that prescribed it, his excellent maje­sty that still requireth it, his infinite mercy that still accepteth it; for it was Gods own Spirit that spake those words by the mouth of Gamaliel, Acts 5. 38, 39. If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it: and upon serious examination we shall finde it most true in our Christian Religion: what hath been either in the doctrine or practise thereof meerly the counsel or work of men, hath in every age of the Church come to [Page 169] nought, and so will to the worlds end: but the counsel and work of God in the Chri­stian Religion never yet was, never shall be overthrown; for the gates of hell might prevail against the Church of Christ, could they prevail against the Christian Religion that upholds the Church.

But since chopping and changing in the profession and practise of Religion is now the great sin of many that would be thought the best Christians, I will endeavour to shew that it should be also their shame no less then it is their sin, for in vain is the pre­tence of Godliness in changing that which God hath ordained should partake of his own unchangeableness: & indeed in every re­spect that God himself is unchangeable Re­ligion is so too; now God is unchangeable in three respects, essentiâ, voluntate, loco; in his essence, in his will, & in his place; and Religi­on would fain also have this immutability.

First, God is immutable in his es­sence, Rev. 1. 4. Grace be unto you, and peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come: from him who always was, always will be the same that he now is; as if he had said, From him that is wholly im­mutable in his essence; that is, from God; [Page 170] for no man is the same either that he was, or that he shall be: and no Angel is the same that he was, for there was a time when he was not: and the first Council of Nice thought it a sufficient proof of the judge­ment of the Catholick Church concerning the Divinity of Christ, in that they said, she anathematized those who said, ‘There was a time when he was not’, which is all one as if they had said concerning him, That he was God, who was, and is, and is to come; for God alone may be said to have an un­changeable Being, who hath his Being from himself: all creatures whatsoever have once changed from a not-Being to a Being, and would again change from a Being to a not-Being, did not the same hand which at first made them, still preserve them; for it is proper onely to the Creatour, who alone is of himself, to be alone unchangeable in him­self: and so is Religion unchangeable in its essence; for being the service of God it must be like its master, since by the rule of Relatives, Change in the service cannot but proceeed from change in the master, at lest from some change in his will, if not in his nature: and therefore the argument rather pleads against the worship of Angels, which [Page 171] is alledged by Bel. l. [...]. de beat. & can. San. c. 14. then for it where he thus argues: ‘the An­gels were worshipped before Christs in­carnation, by Abraham and Lot, Gen. 18, and 19. but the Angel forbad St. John to worship him, Rev. 19. 10. and 22. 9. ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi, for the reverence he did bear to Christ now in the nature of man.’ I answer, That reason is more forcible against invocation which humbles the soul, then it is against adora­tion which humbles the body, since Christ took upon him as well the soul of man as his body; and consequently, if we may not adore the Angels without disparaging the humane nature in Christ, much less may we invocate them without fear of that dispa­ragement. But because this answer doth not satisfie the argument, but rather invert it, if not retort it; I answer secondly, That therefore the worshipping of Angels can­not be made good Religion, because it was not as good Religion in S. John, as it is supposed to have been in Abraham: For if it had been once good Religion, it would have been so still, and must needs be so for ever; since it concerns the very object of worship which must be unchangeable, and [Page 172] not the manner of it, which may in some respects be capable of change: For Religi­on is Gods service, and knows no more how to change it self, then how to change its master; else serving the time, would come to be good Divinity, instead of serving the Lord, which now is taken for a false reading of the text (Rom. 12. 11.) occasioned by short writing of [...], which being enlarged by vowels, might easily be turned into [...], instead of [...]. Wherefore we must say, that the same religious worship is command­ed in Genesis and in the Revelation, in the first and in the last book of Gods word; and if the Angel might not lawfully be wor­shipped by S. Iohn, he might not lawfully be worshipped by Abraham, or by Lot; that is to say, not with a religious worship; and therefore we must confess, that their wor­ship, if religious, was directed onely to the Son of God, who then frequently appeared with the Angels, as it were preluding to his own incarnation: If not religious, but either a civil or a moral reverence in acknowledg­ment either of the Angels government, or of their excellency; 'tis improperly alledged as an act of Religion: for if worshipping of Angels had been a duty of Religion either [Page 173] to Abraham or to Lot, it must also have been so to S. Iohn; and then the Angel would not have said, See thou do it not, but, See thou do it. And this is proof enough, That wor­shipping of Angels is no part of Religion, because it self is confessed to be a changea­ble worship; but Religion cannot be deni­ed to be an unchangeable service in its own nature and essence, even as the God is, whom it serves.

Secondly, God is immutable or un­changeable in his will: Vult mutationem, non mutat voluntatem, as saith Aquinas (par. 1. qu. 19.) ‘He wills a change, but changeth not his will:’ and accordingly God threatning destruction to the Ninivites, and yet not destroying them, may not be said to have changed his own will, but to have willed their change. For though in Promises and in Precepts Gods revealed will is a declaration of his secret will; yet 'tis not so in Threats or comminations of vengeance; there God doth not so much declare what himself wills, as what we deserve: therefore threats may not be fulfilled, and yet Gods will still be the same; not so Promises or Precepts: for God would not promise, if he did not intend to perform; nor would he [Page 174] command, if he did not intend we should o­bey: from his Promise, we have an inter­est in his mercy, for all good is clamable: from his Precepts, his Justice hath an inter­est in us; for all evil is punishable, and all transgression is evil; so that God cannot promise or command what is not according to his will, unless he should dispence either with his mercy or with his justice: but in predictions of vengeance the case is other­wise; God doth often threaten what he doth not will, and therefore may change his threats, and yet not change his will: fór his threats shew not so much his will or his in­tent, as our deservings: that mischief is al­ready towards us in its causes, and will befall us in effect, if by speedy repentance we pre­vent it not. Wherefore though all promi­ses of mercy, that have not a condition spe­cified, are to be understood absolutely, be­cause they give an undeniable and universal right; and all precepts of justice are to be understood absolutely, because they have the nature of a rule or law, to which the subject may not give an exception, but must yield his obedience; yet prophecies of ven­geance are to be understood onely conditi­onally, because they are not declarations of [Page 175] Gods will, but onely of mans present state and condition; that in the condition he now is, he deservs destruction, but if he repent and change his condition, Gods will is still fulfilled though his threat be not; for he therefore threatened destruction, because he was willing to save, not to destroy; so that God is still unchangeable in his will, and the change is onely in man, who changeth his condition.

And so also the true Religion would have us change, but will not change it self; and consequently remains unchangeable in the wills of those that truly love and practise it, for they do not desire that any thing of Re­ligion should be otherwise then it is by Gods appointment; they would not have it law­full to transgress a commandment, or disbe­leeve an article, and much less can they think it lawfull to corrupt or expunge ei­ther; they cannot away with nice distincti­ons, or quarrelsome disputations in Gods service, to mispend that zeal in words, which was given for actions, conceiving them more willing to disclaim, then to obey the rule, who are desirous to distinguish or to dispute upon the command: they cannot rely up­on unwritten traditions as the ground of Re­ligion [Page 176] (they can, as the ground of decency and order) because they have altered, and may alter after the will of men; (besides that some of them do directly oppose the revealed will of God:) for what tradition ever found such general reception, as that which the Jews called the prophecie of Elias, That the world should last 2000 years be­fore the Law, 2000 years under the Law, and 2000 years under the Gospel: yet ve­ry many and good Divines do not think this tradition of sufficient authority for any one to beleeve, not onely because the com­putation of the time past confutes it; but also because it directly opposeth that saying of Christ, S. Mark 13. 32. But of that day, and that hour knoweth no man, no not the An­gels which are in heaven, neither the Son of man, but the Father onely: to which it is a vain reply, That though the day & hour be un­certain, yet the time and the year may be known; for the reason wherefore God will not have his coming to judgement revealed unto men, is, that being sure of the thing, but not sure of the time, they should be al­ways prepared for his coming; which reason is as forcible against the knowing of the year, as it is against the knowing of the day [Page 177] or hour; nor would our Saviour Christ so readily have owned the ignorance of that day, if the year had been revealed before by one of his Prophets; for S. Augustines answer is here most true, Nescivit adreve­landum, Christ said he knew it not, because he would not have it revealed or known to us: agreeable to which is Epiphanius his distinction, of [...], (Haer. Arian.) ‘Christ had a twofold know­ledge, one of Speculation, another of Use; his knowledge of Speculation concerned himself, and by that he knew the day of judgement; his knowledge of Use con­cerned us’, and by that he said he knew not the day of judgement, because he would not have us to know it; which distinction Melancthon hath turned into this rule of Theologie; Dicta, alialoquuntur de Officio Christi, alia de essentia: sic hoc dictum loqui­tur de Officio; Officium Filii Dei est in hoc mi­nisterio, cohortatari ad vigilantiam, non defi­nire tempus & horam, nè homines reddantur securi: ‘Some sayings are verified of the office of Christ, some of his essence; this saying, That he knew not that day and hour, is verified of his office: for it was the office of Christ in his ministery, [Page 178] to exhort men to watchfulnes, not to de­fine times or hours, which was in effect to invite them to security.’

Thus we see this famous tradition, so ge­nerally cried up by the Jews, as the prophe­cie of Elias, is upon examination found to be very uncertain, which makes very sober men infer, that there is, or may be the same uncertainty in other traditions: and there­fore they that will be sure to serve God in faith, must and will appeal to the written word, which alone abideth one and the same for ever: for Religion, being Gods cause, loves to be tried by Gods undoubted word; and where she cannot say, How readest thou? she cannot but say, Why beleevest thou? that our Faith should not stand in the wisdome, much less in the devices of men, but in the power of God, 1 Cor. 2. 5. for that faith which stands in the wisdome of men, stands like a house built upon the sand, tottering and shaking at every violent blast or storm: but that faith which stands in the power of God, stands firm and immoveable by vertue of that power.

Thirdly, God is immutable in place: whi­ther shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? Psal. 139. 7. for by [Page 179] reason of his Immensity being in all places at once so as to fill them, he cannot possibly change his place.

And so also is Religion immutable in place; that is to say, in its proper place, the faithfull soul, though not in its common place, that is, the Church or Congregation of believers: or Religion is immutable in the Catholick Church, though not in par­ticular Churches that are members of it: for the proper place of Religion, where it may be found, and where it is preserved, is the holy Catholick Church which we believe in our Creed, and that consists onely of the Elect, for none are joyned in Communion with Christ but those that have the Spirit of Christ, and they though never so far asun­der, have one Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme, Eph. 4. 5. It is admirable to consider the great mutations that have befallen both Eastern and Western Churches; how that in several ages they have more or less changed their Liturgies (though in no age abolished them) yet it is more properly said that these Churches have changed their Profession or Exercise of Religion, then that they have changed their Religion; for that still re­mains the same Christian Religion in all [Page 180] Churches that still remain Christian, though under diverse and different professions.

The fourth incommunicable property of God is his Eternity, which is a branch of Im­mutability, as time is of motion; for Eternity is a duration or continuance which hath nei­ther beginning nor ending: so Psal. 91. 2. Even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God; Thou art God from everlasting; that is, without beginning: and thou art God to everlasting; that is, without end.

And so also is Religion Eternal both from everlasting and to everlasting; from ever­lasting in the reason of it, because it is a ser­vice or reverence due to God by vertue of his excellent Majesty; and consequently, that due is Eternal with his very Being: but onely to everlasting in the practise of it, be­cause there was no creature from everlasting to practise it: how then should we exceed­ingly desire to know Religion, how to love it, how to practise it, whereby alone our souls are prepared to believe Eternity, and to enjoy it, and to employ it? an irreligious soul, could it possibly get to heaven, would not know what to do there; for there is no­thing but the practise of Religion, or prai­sing God, Rev. 19. 1, 5, 7.

[Page 181] Again, as God in that he is Eternal, ow­eth his Beginning and Continuance to none but onely to himself: and as Eternity because it is from it self, is therefore without a Begin­ning; and because it is of it self, is therefore without an end: so true Religiō hath in some sort its Being from it self, for it is bonum in se, it is good in and by it self, and therefore hath its subsistence in and by it self; let the whole world turn Atheist (as it is turning apace) yet the true Religion will still be the true Religion: there may be in the practise of Religion many things good, because they are commanded; but in the substance of Religion, the internal goodness is the rea­son of the external command: so that Re­ligion is indeed a beam of that light which proceedeth from the Father of Lights, shewing unto Angels & men what they are to know, love, and do, and so leading them both to the Light everlasting: for as God himself is, so is his service; and therefore I could not better explain the properties of Religion, then from the properties of God; Onely God hath his properties immediate­ly flowing from his own essence, but Re­ligion partakes of these mediately from God, as it is his service: God hath these [Page 182] properties not onely Formally in himself, but also Originally from himself: Religion hath them Formally in it self, but Originally from God; Thus hath Religion all those proper­ties of God which are incommunicable to the Creature, and thereby appears to have in it self more of Divinity then any Creature whatsoever, either in Heaven or in Earth: for these being the properties of the true Religion in it self, shew it to be spiritual far above the nature of all created spirits, whereby themselves draw nearer to the God of Spirits in their affections, then in their natures.

If therefore, thou O man desire to be truly Religious, thou must desire to be spi­ritually minded; and the way to be so, is to have a kinde of Simplicity or Incompositi­on, that is, a sincerity of the soul in the love of God; To have a kinde of Immutability, that is, a Constancy; to have an Immensity, that is, a servent Zeal and Alacritie, which will not endure to be straitned or confined; and to have an Eternity, that is, an unwea­ried perseverance in the Faith, and Fear, and Love of God: Nay, indeed these same properties are already in thy soul if thou be truly Religious: for then thou art spiritu­ally [Page 183] minded, and thou canst not but have an uncompounded soul, by sincerity of its ser­vice, not dividing thy affection betwixt God and Baal, betwixt Christ and Belial: Thou canst not but have a constancy in his ser­vice, which will let thee be no Changeling (a thing as monstrous and abominable in the second, as in the first birth;) thou canst not but have an alacrity and fervency of spirit, which will not be circumscribed or confined either to, or by time, or place; neither to a Conclave at Rome, nor to a Consistory at Geneva, nor to a Conventicle in England; for as Christianity it self is not confined, so neither the soul as 'tis Christi­an; but joyns in Communion with all Christians that ever were, or that are, or that shall be, in the honour and love of Christ; thy house is too little, thou wilt to the Church; nay the Church is too little, thou wilt to the Catholick Church, the whole Church Militant; thy spirit shall be with theirs, when theirs is with Christ; nay the Catholick Church is too little here on Earth, thou wilt up to that part of it which is triumphant in Heaven: for Chri­stian duties as they are practised here will cease with our lives, therefore the Christian [Page 184] soul will look after such duties as she may practise in Heaven; and at least in habit, if not in act, will even here be eternally Religi­ous; as we are divinely taught by our own Church, saying with a most Catholick spi­rit, It is very meet, right, and our bounden du­ty, that we should at all times, and in all places give thanks unto thee O Lord, holy Father, Al­mighty, everlasting God, thereby shewing us the Immensity of Religion, That it is not to be circumscribed, to, or by any place, for it is meet that we give thanks in all places; and also the eternity of Religion, that it is not to be confined to or by any time, for it is meet that we give thanks at all times, Eternity being the blessedness we look for, the means whereby we compass it, must needs be eternal, not onely in the efficient cause, God himself; but also in the instru­mental cause, that is Religion.

And since Omnipotency, All sufficiency and Omnisciency are but three branches of Eter­nity; It is necessary before I come to the Communicable Properties, that I speak of them; for God in that he is Eternal, is Om­nipotent, since there could be no other foun­tain of power, unless we would make two Eternals: and the same God as he is Eter­nal [Page 185] is All-sufficient, for having his being of himself, he must needs also have it per­fectly in himself; and lastly, the same God as he is Eternal is also Omniscient, for it is the Property of Eternity, to have all things present to it, as to be always present to it self: wherefore it will be worth our while briefly to consider these Properties as they are in God, and as they are also in Re­ligion, the service of God; and first of the Omnipotency.

Gods Omnipotency or Almighty Power appears especially in two things; First, that he hath power to do all that he will; Se­condly, that he hath power over all when he will; had he not the First, he could not be Almighty in himself; had he not the second, he could not be Almighty in our esteem; the first tends to the Execution, the second to the Declaration of his Al­mighty power; The text doth ordinarily prove them both together, as 1 Tim 6. 15. the Son of God is called the blessed and one­ly Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords: The onely Potentate that hath pow­er to do all that he will, and hath also pow­er to do all when he will; as King of kings, and Lord of lords: Wherefore those men [Page 186] that under pretence of setting up Christs kingdom; do fight against the power and authority of earthly Kings and powers, do directly oppose this Text as well as very many other; for they would so make Christ a King and a Lord, as not a King of kings and Lord of lords, but as a king and lord of the meanest of the people; whereas though there be never so many kings and potentates and lords, yet he is truly, the onely Potentate, the onely King, the onely Lord, because he is so in and of himself; for all others have power, and kingship, and lordship from him; as himself hath taught us, S. Mat. 28. 18. All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth; It will be a hard task for any man to shew who it was that took this power from Christ, and gave it to the people, that kings and princes here on earth should have their power derived from them and not from Christ; but yet least we should think the Power and King­dom of Christ, not the same with the Power and Kingdom of God, we finde them both joyned together, Rev. 11. 15. where it is said, The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; & he shall reign for ever and ever; He, not they, [Page 187] to shew there is but one kingdom, but one power, of Christ and of God: and lest we should further think, the kingdom of Christ could not be set up without pulling down o­ther kingdoms, it is made evident in the 17 v. that his kingdom is set up, by taking to himself his great power to reign, not by giving it to the people; v. 17. We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast. and art to come, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned: where we see the Elders in heaven give thanks to God, for taking to himself his Almighty power; In imitation whereof our Church hath taught us to say, We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorifie thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almigh­ty, joyning also God the Son, and holy Ghost in the same power & in the praise; and without doubt we have little reason to per­secute, but we have great reason to honour a Church, that teacheth us so to praise God here on earth, as we shall hereafter praise him in heaven: for thus is God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost Almighty in power, and therefore thus to be praised for being so. If then thou murmure and repine under this [Page 188] power when it punisheth thee, or presume upon it, much more rebel against it when it sustaineth thee, thou art as far from heaven as thou art from true thankfulness.

But if God hath this Almighty power, that he can do all, how is it that S. Paul saith, He cannot deny himself, 2 Tim. 2. 13. The answer is easie, God cannot do what he cannot will, and he cannot will any thing of impotency, for that were directly to over­throw his Omnipotency; and in this sense did Nazianzene speak like a Divine, saying, [...], ‘One kinde of impossibility with God, is his unwil­lingness;’ as the text plainly saith of the Son of God, That he could there do no mighty work, (S. Mar. 6. 5.) that is, he would there do no mighty work, because of their unbelief; which unbelief of theirs was so great a miracle to him, as that it hindred his working all other miracles: accordingly Di­vines do say, That some things are impossi­ble to God, in regard of his own will, be­cause he cannot will them; as to give a new Gospel, to make a new Religion, to destroy the whole world with a second deluge, to extirpate the Catholick Church, which imply no contradiction in themselves, and [Page 189] therefore might be done, though God ha­ving promised the contrary, cannot now will to do them: Habent rationem factibilium, sed non habent rationem factoris. Other things are impossible to God in regard of themselves; because they are [...], or [...] ▪ non habent factibilium rationem, are not things to be done; nec rationem factoris, and therefore God cannot do them, as those things that imply a contradiction; as for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time: for this being a contradiction, cannot be without a lie; and therefore that was a strange assertion of Bellarmines, (lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 7. & deinde) and not maintained for its own sake, when he said, Per divinam potentiam posse ab homine tolli facultatem seu potentiam intelligendi, interim ut maneat homo: ‘That God can take a­way a mans reasonable faculty or power of understanding, and yet leave him still a man:’ for that is all one as to say, That God can make the same man reasonable and unreasonable: for if he take away his rea­sonable faculty, he makes him unreasonable: and yet, if he leave him still a man, he leaves him reasonable: for this indeed were Impoten­cy in God, not Omnipotency; if he could make [Page 190] both parts of a contradiction true, because they cannot both be made true without a lie

And thus also is Religion Omnipotent, by vertue of Gods Omnipotencie: for it hath power to do all, & hath power over all; Cast­ing down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, and having in a readiness to avenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10. 5, 6. The power of the sword may cast down images, but 'tis onely the power of Religion that can cast down Imaginations, and they no less then the other, do exalt themselves against the knowledge of God: the power of the sword can bring into ca­ptivity every man to the obedience of the Conquerour; but 'tis onely the power of Re­ligion can bring into captivity everythought to the obedience of Christ: That power can avenge the disobedience without, which is but half disobedience; but 'tis onely this power can avenge the disobedience within as well as without, that is, all disobedience. Will you raise an army against Religion? Alas! That can scatter a people that delight in war; for when Christ shall come to judge among the nations, they shall beat their [Page 191] swords into plow-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, Isa. 2. 4. And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day, v. 17. and this being the signe the prophet hath given us of the coming of Christs kingdome, let not those who are of a quite contrary dispositi­on, pretend to be under Christs govern­ment, who labour to exalt man, not Christ: for as Dagon fell before the Ark, so must all ensignes of hostility fall down before Christs banner: and if they that carry them, do not fall to the earth with them, 'tis be­cause they have not yet seen the light of Christ, nor heard his voice, saying, I am Je­sus whom thou persecutest, Act. 9.

But we shall the more clearly see the splendour of this Omnipotency, if we do seri­ously consider, how suddenly the light of the Gospel, notwithstanding all oppositions and persecutions, did shine to the remotest corners of the earth; insomuch, that Poli­dore Virgil saith, (lib. 2. Hist.) Ab initio or­ti Evangelii Britanniam fidem recepisse; ‘That Great Britain received the Faith from the first preaching of the Gospel;’ and yet Britain was looked upon as divided [Page 192] from all the habitable world, (& penitus to­to divisos orbe Britannos) many years after Christ. But Gildas saith more expresly, (De excidio Britan. in Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 5) Tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Cae­saris, &c. ‘We know that Britain recei­ved the faith towards the latter time of Tiberius:’ now the very last year of Tiberius was the year of our Lord 38 in Baronius his account; so that it is evident if Gildas say true, (and he was worse then mad if he pro­duced his scimus to broach a lie) That Bri­tain received the Christian Faith within five years after the resurrection of Christ: and therefore sure not from the Church of Rome; for that Church did not it self receive that faith, till the 45 year of the Lord, that is, at least ten years after the resurrection of Christ, as saith the same Baronius, ‘that in the year of Christ 45, on the 15 of the Calends of Febr. (that is, the 17 of our January)’ the Church of Rome was in­stituted by S. Peter, and the Popes chair erected there; and on that day this prayer was used in ancient rituals, Omnipotens sem­piterne Deus, qui ineffabili sacramento Aposto­lo tuo Petro principatum Romae urbis tribuisti, unde se Evangelica Veritas per tota mundi [Page 193] regna diffunderet, Praesta, quaesumus, ut quod in orbem terrarum ejus praedicatione mana­vit, Universitas Christiana, Devotione sequa­tur. (Bar. Anti-Christ. 45. nu. 1.) And sure­ly if the truth of the Gospel did go into all the world from Rome, and came not to Rome till the 45 year of Christ: there were at least ten whole years from the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, wherein the truth of the Gospel did lie as it were hid in a cor­ner: but this was certainly far otherwise, and Baronius his old prayer must therefore be accounted a new invention, and might easily from the very stile of it be so proved; for sure very few parts of the now Christi­an world, did stay so many years for the Christian Faith: And if the Church of Rome were so unhappy to stay so long for Christianity, that she might get Supremacy, she may still be so unhappy (for ought we know) as to keep the Supremacy, and lose the Christianity: however certain it is, that innumerable other Churches, and amongst the rest, this of Britain received the Chri­stian Faith long before that time, the Sun of Righteousness breaking forth like the Sun in the firmament, not unto any one place or people alone, but unto all: What pro­vidence [Page 194] brought Joseph of Arimathea, or a­ny other Apostolical man to England be­fore St. Peter came to Rome, might per­chance be accounted a curious, but would certainly be a vain dispute: 'tis enough for the proof of the Omnipotency of the Chri­stian Religion, That the Saviour of the world who died for all, did not suffer the distance of place to keep or intercept from any the speedy knowledge of his salvation.

The second branch of Eternity is All-suf­ficiency: and therefore God as he is eternal, is likewise all-sufficient; as he is eternal of himself, so he is all-sufficient in himself: which all-sufficiency consists of these three parts:

1. That he hath an absolute perfection.

2. That he hath this perfection in and from himself.

3. That this perfection is not onely suf­ficient for himself, but also for all things besides himself.

First, God hath an absolute perfection not onely of essence or being, but also of opera­tion or working; for even in that grand Objection, That the wicked do flourish, and the righteous are oppressed, appears a three-fold perfection of Gods operation; First, in [Page 195] the variety of his providence, that he di­spenseth both prosperity and adversity: Secondly, in the justice of his providence, that he punisheth sinne in his own servants, who though they can say, their adversities are greater then other mens, yet can they not say, they are so great as are their own sins: Thirdly, in the mercy of his providence, that he punisheth them onely temporally, therein shewing his mercy to be greater then either their adversities or their sins.

And so also true Religion hath an abso­lute perfection both in its being, and in its working; that is, both in its substance, and in its exercise: and what defects or faults are to be found in the exercise of it among any sort of Christians, belong to the men, not to the Religion: Some will needs kneel to Images that were of their own making, others will not kneel to God their Maker; the one may go for the exercise of Super­stition, the other for the exercise of profane­ness, but neither can go for the exercise of Religion.

Secondly, God hath his perfection in and from himself: For who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? Rom. 11. 35. [...], who hath [Page 196] given first unto him? We may, and do, and must give unto God: O give thanks unto the Lord, saith the Psalmist, there's our [...], our giving unto him; but even in this is his [...], his giving first to us: for he gives us the grace, before we give him the praise; we give, but he gives first: for he hath his perfection in and from himself, we have ours in and from him.

And so hath Religion its perfection in and from it self, whence it is called the beau­ty of Holiness, Psal. 96. 9. The Christian Religion is the Beauty of earth, even as Christ the Authour of it is the Beauty of Heaven: And the Beauty of Holiness which is in Religion, consists not in our adorning of Churches, or in outward pomp and Ce­remonies, but in its own internal harmony and congruity to, and conformity with him, who is the very Beauty of Heaven, the pro­per place of Holiness, as being the habita­tion of the Holy One: If thou come to worship, thou receivest beauty from the ho­liness, not the holiness beauty from thee; thy soul is beautified thereby, and made the Love of God and Angels, but Religion was so of it self ever before: as it is said, Psal. 93. 6. Holiness becometh thy house for [Page 197] ever; the holiness of Gods House is a beco­ming holiness, and it is a holiness for ever, a holiness that was before the creation of the world, and a holiness that shall be after the end thereof: Therefore outward orna­ment may not be pleaded for as matter of Religion, but onely as matter of decency; for decency hath much of its perfection from men, but Religion hath all its perfe­ction in and from it self: and as God is pro­ved to be all-sufficient from himself, because he made all things for himself, Prov. 16. 4. (for even the wicked though without the order of particular, yet are within the order of universal providence:) For God wills himself and his own goodness onely as the end, but all other things as ordered to that end, that is, for himself, and in relation to his own goodness: So is it with Religion, it admits of Ceremonies, not for theirs, but for its own goodness, and thereby appears to be sufficient of it self without them: If the shadow grow longer then the substance, 'tis an argument the Sun is yet either not at its heighth, or past it: so where Ceremo­nies are more looked after then piety and godliness, it argues in men a defect of Re­ligion and goodness: God using the crea­ture [Page 198] as an instrument, doth not so use it, for the want of vertue, but for the abundance of his goodness, non propter defectum virtu­tis, sed propter abundandam bonitatis, saith Aquin. par. 1. qu. 22. So Religion using the ordinances of men, doth it not for want of sufficiency in it self; but to impart some excellencie to those ordinances, Ut dignita­tem causalitatis communicet, to communi­cate to them so much vertue, as to make them, though not the essential yet the acci­dental causes of devotion in us, and therefore we may no more reject such Ordinances, then we may reject the helps of devotion.

Thirdly, Gods perfection makes him not onely All-sufficient for himself, but also for all things else besides himself: Psal. 84. 11. For the Lord God is a sun and a shield, (a sun to give life, and a shield to preserve it) The Lord will give grace and glory, (grace to our sanctification, glory to our salvation, that is, a full sufficiencie for this life, and for the next) And no good thing will he with-hold from them that walk uprightly, that is, he hath already given all good things that we were able to receive, and when we shall be able to receive the rest, he will give them too; for he will withhold none, according to [Page 199] that of the same Prophet, Psal. 145. v. 16. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the de­sire of every living thing; scil. whether it be living in earth or in heaven: So is true Religion, not onely sufficient in and for it self, but for us also: for what other reason can be given, why so many men are con­tented to lose all, that they may keep their consciences, but onely this, That Religion wants no perfection in it self, and brings them that follow it to enjoy the perfection that is in God.

The third branch of Eternity is Omnisci­ency, and God in that he is Eternal, is also Omniscient. Now the Omnisciencie of God consists in these two things; First, in that he fully knows himself: Secondly, in that he fully knows all other things in and by himself.

First, God fully knows and understands himself, the whole compass of his own minde and intentions, what they are, have been, or ever shall be, because eternitie is present to its self: hence it is said, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world, Acts 15. 18. and this is a pro­pertie not belonging to the Angels, and much less to men: the Angels know what [Page 200] their intentions have been, and still are, but not what they shall be for ever, because then they could comprehend Infinity, which cannot be in the understanding where it is not in the essence: but as for us men, we know not what our intentions have been, (Remember not the sins of my youth, Psal. 25. 7. q. d. I have forgot them, O do not thou remember them:) nor what they are, Jer. 17. 9. The heart of man is deceitfull above all things, (and indeed never more deceitfull then when it labours to deceive it self:) nor what they shall be: the best way concern­ing those, is to say with the Psalmist, Keep thy servant, Psal. 19. for he that cannot tell what he shall resolve to morrow, can less tell what he shall resolve all his life: but God knows all his intentions from the be­ginning to the end, so that he alone fully understands himself.

Secondly, God fully knows all other things in and by himself: this is a truth ac­knowledged by the father of lies, though therefore acknowledged that it might be abused, as truth is still by all the devils instruments: Gen. 3. 5. Ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil; that is, all things: for they were either good or evil; the looking­glass [Page 201] of eternity in it self representing all things to it self; Good things by their pro­per forms and resemblances; Evil things by the contrary good: Bonum in se per speciem, malum non per privationem in se existentem, sed per bonum oppositum, Aquin. par. 1. qu. 14. Thus the Lord is a God of knowledge, (1 Sam. 2. 3.) as fully knowing himself, and as fully knowing all other things in and by himself. So also is Religion a thing of great knowledge; cares not for an implicite faith in the knowing, no more then in the assenting part: cares not for a faith which doth not know for it self, no more then for a faith which doth not assent for it self; and so is in effect omniscient, because it makes us know our selves, and know our God, that is in the serpents words, Know good and evil: for we know evil in knowing our selves, and we know good in knowing our God.

First, Religion is in effect omniscient, be­cause it makes us know our selves; nothing else cares to look after the deceitfulness of the heart, but sure nothing else can finde it out: no man knows so much of himself, as he that is religious; he knows his own heart, his own thoughts, what they have [Page 202] been, exceeding sinfull; what they are, very penitent; and in some sort, what they shall be, very perseverant: for upon supposition of Gods grace, he can promise to himself a perseverance in the way of godliness. This you will say is a comfortable doctrine, and I doubt not, but if you addict your self wholly to your devotions (to have a constant com­munion with God) but you will finde it as certain as 'tis comfortable. For if natural reason makes men very knowing, that well improve it, though it be but the dim light of men; how much more doth Religion make men knowing, that rightly use it, since it is no other then the glorious light of God? so that to live but one day according to the rules of piety and devotion, will make a man more truly wise; then study without piety will make him, though he be a con­stant student very many years. The pro­phet David tells us this, Psal. 119. v. 98. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser then mine enemies; but lest any should say, That may easily be, that a good man should be wiser then his enemies: for none are enemies to good men that have not first lost their wits as well as their hone­stie; therefore he addeth further, I have [Page 203] more understanding then all my teachers, v. 99. And lest we should still object, That the teachers are not always the wisest, especially if they teach too soon, before they have been diligent learners; he addeth yet fur­ther, I understand more then the ancients, v. 100. that is, then those that have been longest learners before they became teach­ers: That's the most profitable wisdome, which makes a man wiser then his enemies, for it keeps him from being circumvented; that's the most honourable wisdome, which makes a man wiser then his teachers; for it gives him a preeminence of understanding far above his condition; that though he is called to be a learner, yet he is enabled to be a teacher: Lastly, that's the most infalli­ble wisdome, which makes a man wiser then the ancients: for that gives him a pree­minence of understanding above the condi­tion of mortality, which can attain to no greater wisdome, then such as is gained by long travel of study; & confirmed by longer experience of years: so that if we desire that wisdome which is most profitable, most honourable, and most infallible; we must do as this holy man did, converse more with God then with men: for so he professeth, [Page 204] v, 104. Through thy precepts I get under­standing: we may see that understanding is to be gotten by studying the precepts of men, but we cannot get it, savingly but by studying the precepts of God: for the pro­phet Daniel saith, The light dwelleth with God, Dan. 2. 22. and S. John saith, He that lo­veth his brother, abideth in the light: what is this light, but the truth, or the true Religi­on which hath these two properties of light, that 'tis [...]. that it enlightens and reproves; it enlightens the understand­ing by the knowledge of God; it reproves the will, the affections, and the actions for the practise of evil.

Secondly, Religion is in effect Omnisci­ent, because it makes us know all things be­sides our selves; that is, all things that are proper and profitable for us to know; things wherein are the true comforts of this life, & the true blessings of the next; so saith the A­postle, 1 Cor. 2. 15. The spiritual man judgeth or discerneth all things: the more he is spiritu­al, the more he is able to discern: the more he increaseth in Religion, the more he increa­seth in true wisdome and knowledge: as the man in the Gospel, when his eyes were first opened mistook men for trees, but after­wards [Page 205] when he was perfectly cured, he could distinguish both aright: so the spi­ritual man at his first conversion, hath but a confused knowledge of the things neces­sary to his salvation, but afterwards he comes exactly to judge and to discern them all: nor will his faith whereby he knows in part, leave him till he come by degrees to a clear vision. Let several knowing men all rejoyce in the excellencies of their several knowledges, but let this be the priviledge onely of the religious man, That he alone knows whom he hath be­leeved, and whom he may trust: for he alone is able to know how God disposed of him before his life, and how he will dispose of him after his death.

CHAP. VI.

IT is the special priviledge of the good Christian, that the same Religion doth make him imitate God here, which will make him enjoy God hereafter: for the same God who is the Authour of Religion, is also the best pattern of it, because Reli­gion resembles him not onely per modum vestigii, but also per modum Imaginis, not onely as having his footsteps (for so every creature represents the Creatour) but also as having the exact lineaments and pour­traitures of his very Image; so that Gods Service is best known by the knowledge of himself, and the Properties of the true Re­ligion are best declared by declaring the Pro­perties of God.

The Incommunicable Properties have been already spoken of, his Simplicity, Infinity, Immutability, Eternity, and the three branches or adjuncts thereof, his Omnipo­tency, [Page 207] All-sufficiency, Omnisciency; I now come to the communicable Properties of God, which are especially these three, Truth in his Understanding, Goodness in his Will, and Activity in his operative faculty, answera­ble to his Truth and Goodness; for the In­tellective faculty is vain without the Affe­ctive, the Affective without the Operative: and therefore according to the proportion and perfection of the one, is also necessarily the proportion and perfection of the other: God first knows, then wills, then works; As he knows, so he wills, not Irrationally; As he wills, so he works, not Ineffectually: And so is Religion very Intellective, and ve­ry Affective, and very Active or Operative; these three properties are all joyned toge­ther, Deut. 4. 6. Keep therefore and do, for this is your wisdome and your understanding: where we have wisdome for the Intellective, keeping or observing for the Affective, and doing for the Operative faculty of the soul: Accordingly Divines tell us, there are some vertues that are Catholick or Universal, be­longing to the whole worship of God in ge­neral; and having alike influence upon all the Commandments, or upon all the du­ties of Religion, whether they concern God [Page 208] immediately in himself, or mediately in his Image; and these Catholick vertues are Wisdome and Prudence in the Understand­ing, Integrity, Alacrity, and Constancy in the Will; and Zeal and Perseverance in the a­ction; that Election, Affection, Action, may all joyn together to glorifie him, who is the first Truth to direct our Election, the last Good to satisfie our Affection, and the chiefest Excellency to excite and provoke our Action: Wherefore it is the property of Religion to make a man more judicious, more affectionate, and more industrious then he was before, though he had never so piercing a Judgement, never so strong and vehement Affections, never so indu­strious an Action.

For the soul of man though it consist of these three faculties, the Intellective or knowing, the Affective or desiring, the o­perative or working; the Intellective fa­culty whereby it knows what is to be done, the Affective whereby it desires to do it, and the Operative or Active, whereby it sulfils that desire in doing; yet this very soul doth not, cannot rightly know or desire or do, till it be throughly instructed, exalted, and quickned by Religion; nay, on the contrary [Page 209] all the while it continues irreligious, it is stupid in knowledge, perverse in affection, and sluggish in action: for though there is in all spirits a power of knowing what is true, of desiring what is good, and of effecting what they desire, yet we cannot but ac­knowledge that these three faculties in all men (who have their spirits clogged with sinfull flesh) are very much weakened by sin, and consequently must labour, that they may be strengthened by piety and godli­ness: yet will I not enter upon a particular enumeration of Gods communicable Proper­ties (I have been too long already upon this argument) much less upon a particu­lar explication of them; for it will be suffi­cient for my purpose, (which is the advance­ment of the true Religion in the hearts and lives of men) if I briefly insist onely upon these three (to which all the rest may be reduced) and they are, Truth in his Under­standing, Goodness in his Will, and Purity in his Action; (for we cannot better consi­der Gods Activity, then in the Purity of his Action) unto which we must also annex a short discourse of Liberty, as belonging to all three, that is to say, to Understanding, and Will, and Action.

[Page 210] And these three Properties of Truth, Goodness, Purity, as they are eminently in God, and evidences of his perfection, so are they also eminent in Religion, the service of God.

And first of the Truth of God and of Re­ligion.

God is true by a metaphysical and by a mo­ral Truth.

First, By a metaphysical Truth, as having the true knowledge of all things, Psa. 139. 2. thou understandest my thoughts long before: God understandeth our thoughts before they are; the angels not when they are, and therefore they are defective in truth, be­cause defective in understanding: for Truth metaphysically is a conformity of the thing with the understanding: and accordingly our blessed Saviour is particularly called the Truth, as being the Omniscient Wisdome of God, and the eternal Understanding of the Father, even as the holy Ghost is the eternal Love both of Father and Son.

Secondly, God is True by a moral Truth, as having his Affection, Expression, Action, agreeable to his knowledge, and that in three respects.

1. As Truth is opposed to Falshood, for [Page 211] God neither wills nor speaks an untruth.

2. As Truth is opposed to Dissimulation, for God neither dissembleth nor decei­veth.

3. As Truth is opposed to Inconstancy, for God changeth not his judgement in truths declared or determined; he chan­geth not the event in truths foretold or prophesied; for in promises he keeps his word and his truth, if man perform the con­ditions; in threats he may not keep his word, and yet keep his truth, because they are but conditional:

And as for deceiving the Prophets Ezek. 14. 9. and 1 King. 22. 23. we generally and truly answer, Tradit diabolo decipiendos, he ‘delivereth them over to the devil’, to be deceived by him; so saith the Text, Be­cause they received not the love of the Truth that they might be saved, for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, that they should beleeve a lie, that they all might be damned who beleeved not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness, 2 Thes. 2. 10, 11, 12. a text that gives us a fearful, but yet a full account of all those strong delusions among men, which led directly to the Father of lies: the first step was a voluntary unrighteousness [Page 212] in not loving the truth: the second step is a strong delusion in beleeving a lie: the third step (God keep them from treading in that, who have trodden in the two former) is a necessary damnation both for not loving the truth, and for having pleasure in lies: but still God is true, though every man be a liar; for God deceiveth the Prophet Ez [...]. 14. 9. as he hardeneth the heart Exod. 10. 1. permissivè non efficienter, permissively no [...] efficaciously, by not inhibiting or not pur­ging those ill qualities that are already is the heart, not by infusing any ill qualities into it; and therefore though he saith, I have hardened Pharaohs heart, yet he saith unto us, Harden not your (own) hearts; and accordingly he threatneth in Ezekiel, to destroy such a prophet from the midst of his people, whose heart was hardned so fa [...] as to deceive himself and others, whereas he could not in justice destroy him onely for being that which himself had made him nay, this permission is most plainly set forth in that parable of 1 Kin. 22. for all that God doth there, is onely to let the evil spirit go forth, that is, not to inhibite him from going and deceiving, not to send him down from heaven: For it is evident, that the evil spirit [Page 213] never did, and never can come into heaven again, since he was first thrown down from thence. And thus briefly God is True Me­taphysically and Morally; Metaphysical truth consisting in the right apprehension of things as they are in themselves; Moral truth in the right affection and profession of things as they are apprehended; and this profession is either in word by veracity, or in action by sincerity, or in continuance of action by constancy; so that moral truth is opposed to falshood, because 'tis the same with reality; to dissimulation, because 'tis the same with sincerity; and to wavering and floating, because 'tis the same with cer­tainty.

And this same metaphysical and moral truth is also in Religion, passing from the Master into his service: for the Father seek­eth such to worship him, who worship him as he is, that is, who worship him in spirit be­cause he is a Spirit, and who worship him in truth because he is the Truth, S. John 4. 23, 24. The worship in spirit points at the metaphysical truth of Religion, which re­quires a true apprehension of God; the worship in truth points at the moral truth of Religion, which requires an Affection, Pro­fession, [Page 214] Action agreeable to that true appre­hension; and for both these hath our own Church taught us to pray (Collect 7^th Sun­day after Tri.) ‘Graff in our hearts the love of thy Name, Increase in us true Religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same.’ Do you look for the metaphysical Truth of Religi­on? 'Tis in the knowledge of Gods Name, (which must be presupposed before the love of it, since no man can love what he doth not know) that you know God by his true Name, such as himself hath pro­claimed Exod. 32. 5, 6, 7. or, that you appre­hend God as he is, not set up to your self an idol in stead of God, as do all those who worship not the Father, by the Son, in the unity of the Spirit: Again, do you look for the moral truth of Religion? 'Tis in the love of Gods Name, that you love him ac­cording to your knowledge, or that you have your affection agreeable to your appre­hension: for to know God, and not to love him, is in effect to proclaim you do not truly know him, since the same God is the first Truth and ground of our knowledge, and also the last good and cause of our love: and you may here likewise finde this mo­ral [Page 215] truth of Religion in all respects: First, in its Reality, for it is the very true Religion op­posed to falshood, or superstition, 'tis indeed Gods Name. Secondly, in its Sincerity or Fidelity, for it is all Goodness, not onely in the tongue but also in the heart, and in the hand, as Truth is opposed to Dissimulation or Hypocrisie: Thirdly, in its certainty or perseverance [And of thy great mercy keep us in the same] as Truth is opposed to uncertainty or to levity and inconstancy.

Religion then hath and must have a two-fold truth; the first consists in a right ap­prehension whereby we believe the thing as it is: the second, in a right affection, profession, and action, whereby we love and profess, and do the thing as we beleeve: and there cannot be a more religious pray­er invented by the wit of Piety, nor a more affectionate prayer practised by the zeal of Charity, then that which is so remarkable both for its Piety and for its Charity in our own Church (Collect 3. Sunday after Easter) Almlghty God, which shewest to all men that be in errour the light of thy Truth, to the in­tent that they may return into the way of Righ­teousness, there's its piety towards God rightly descanting upon Gods intent in [Page 216] shewing the light of his truth; to make men righteous, not to make them inexcu­sable; These things I say that ye might be sa­ved, S. Joh. 5. 34. not onely convinced, saith our blessed Saviour, and yet he spake to those who had not the love of God, v. 42. Grant unto all them that be admitted into the fellowship of Christ, Religion, that they may eschew those things that be contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as be agreeable to the same; there's its charity to­wards men, affectionately desiring, that as they have a Christian Communion, so they may also have a Christian conversation, lest their unchristian conversation destroy and disanull their Christian Communion, which without doubt it hath done already in many ages of the Church, and will do still to the worlds end, unless God in his mercy fill our hearts more and more with this true piety towards himself, and with this true charity one towards another. And for this cause the Commandments are in the judgement of some Divines accounted practical Arti­cles of the Christian Faith, because if these be left out in our conversation, what is true in it self of our Creed, is as it were false to us, since either our profession gives [Page 217] the lye to our apprehension and affection, or our action to our profession: for this is the difference betwixt speculative and pra­ctical truths (speculativè & practicè credi­bilia) those things that we must believe speculatively, and those that we must be­lieve practically; the first, which are sum­med up in the Creed, are truly believed if there be a conformity of the thing with the Understanding; but the second, which are summed up in the Decalogue, are then one­ly truly believed, when there is a conformi­ty of the affection, and of the profession, and of the action, with the belief: thus they that worship Images do expunge the second, and they that resist Magistrates do expunge the fifth Commandment, if not out of their books, yet at least out of their Faith; in their Books they may be true believers, but in their Lives they are (in these particu­lars) little less then Infidels.

Now see in what a miserable condition is the irreligious miscreant, who so beleeves as to make void his own faith; and so re­ceives the truth, as to make the truth it self a lie to him, either for want of a sanctified affection in not loving it, or for want of a sanctified action in not practising it: and [Page 218] hence we may likewise see and must con­fess, that not he who knows most of the doctrine of Faith is the best Beleever, but he that most loves what he knows in specu­latives, and he that most practises what he knows in practicks: so that a great Scholar may fully know the truth, and yet to him it may be as a lye, because he loves it not, for to him it is what he desires it should be; contrariwise an ignorant peasant may not fully know the truth, and yet to him it may be the saving truth, because he loves it, for what is wanting in his head, is made up by his heart: O my soul glory not in the knowledge of Christ, but in the love of that knowledge: glory not in thy learning (if thou art Mistress of any) but in thy Reli­gion, to which thou oughtest to be a ser­vant: learning may make a man wise to ostentation, but 'tis onely Religion can make him wise to salvation. Do not then with Pilate, ask thy Saviour what is truth, and then go away without his answer, much less mayest thou turn to those Jews that help to crucifie him: for if thou know these things happy art thou (not because thou knowest them, but) if thou do them: thy happiness consists not in knowing Christ, but in practi­sing [Page 219] him; nor is it possible for a man to be long defective in his practise, and not to be defective also in his knowledge, since what is sinfull in the deliberate action, is sinfull in the will; and what is sinfull in the will, is erroneous in the judgement or understand­ing: and this is the reason that a man may be a heretick, not onely in credendis but also in agendis, not onely in Articles of Faith, but also in Duties of Life; nay, indeed he cannot easily be a heretick in the Duties of Life, and still remain truly Orthodox in the Articles of Faith: as for example, he that prays to a Saint or Angel in stead of God, directly overthrows the first Command­ment, but indirectly also the first Article of his Creed, I believe in one God; for Prayer is a Sacrifice that may be offered onely unto God: again, he that wilfully dishonours his Governours whom God hath set over him, directly overthrows the fifth Commandment, but indirectly also the ninth Article of his Creed, I beleeve the Holy Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints; for being a Lover of division, he is not a true beleever of that Communion: and this we may take for a general doctrine fit­ter to be received then opposed.

[Page 220] First, that any practical errour which is against our duty towards God, doth tend to a speculative errour against some part of the Creed which concerneth God: as he that doth not honour God as God, doth in effect deny him to be maker of heaven and earth; therefore saith the Psalmist, O come let us worship and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our maker; as if we could not truly be­leeve him to be our maker, if we will not worship him with all possible reverence and fear.

Secondly, that any practical errour which is against our duty towards our neighbour, doth tend against some Article of the Creed that hath relation to men: as he that will not be subject to the authority of his lawfull governours, Civil or Ecclesiastical, doth in effect deny, The Catholick Church; and the Communion of Saints.

Thirdly and lastly, that any practical er­rour against the duty which a man ow­eth unto himself, doth tend against some Article of Faith that concerns him­self: as he that is a common drunkard, or unclean, or profane person, doth in effect de­ny the Forgiveness of sins, and the Resurre­ction of the body.

[Page 221] Wherefore when Almighty God requi­reth every Christian to be true or faithfull unto the death, that he may receive a crown of life, (Revel. 2. 10.) he requires of him a dou­ble truth or faithfulness, not onely that he be true and faithfull in his Belief, but also (and much rather) that he be true and faith­full in his life.

First, God requires a faithfulness in our Belief, by a right apprehension of Gods word, not adding thereto, nor diminishing therefrom: for that is forbidden from the beginning of the Law, (as Deut. 4. 2.) to the end of the Gospel, (as Revel. 22. 18, 19.) not adding thereto by Superstition, nor di­minishing therefrom by Faction: for as the superstitious seeks to flatter his God (Religio­si sunt Deorum amici, Superstitiosi Deorum a­dulatores) so the factious seeks to flatter him­self: do thou thy duty, and let alone thy flattery: for it is not safe for thee to flatter thy God, and much less to flatter thy self.

Secondly, God requires faithfulness in our affection, life, and conversation; that we may be saithfull professours of his truth, and as faithfull witnesses to it: for a man may be Gods witness by speaking, by living, by dy­ing, and he that is commanded to be faithfull [Page 222] unto the death, that is, to be faithfull in dying (if God call him to it) is already supposed to be faithfull in speaking and in living: for he that bids thee be fathfull unto thy death, doth surely suppose thee already faithfull in thy life, and commands thee to continue so: and this faithfulness is shewed by thy words in confessing, and that's veracity; by thy deed; in professing, or practising, and that's fidelity; and by thy perseverance unto the death both in words and deeds, and that's constancie.

This is the truth of Religion both for­mally and efficiently; formally in regard of it self, and efficiently in regard of us; that as it is true in it self, so it also makes us true and faithfull at all times, and in all respects: and if you further desire to know how far any Christian Church hath followed, or doth follow this truth, you may try it by this touch-stone, which being infallible in reason, cannot be erroneous in Religion. [...], saith Aristotle, (lib. 4. Eth. cap. 13.) Greece is not so happy as to afford us a name for this moral truth, and may justly own to be Graecia mendax upon that account: but he that hath that vertue, is called by Aristotle, [...] A true man [Page 223] both in life and word: and is to be known by these three properties; that he is full of equi­ty, will do no man wrong; is full of authori­ey, will ask no mans leave, (whereas the hy­pocrite is not [...], himself for all others, but [...], all others for himself;) and last­ly, is full of modesty, will ask no mans praise, and therefore will set forth himself, though in true colours, yet with the least varnish; so also is the true Religion; first, it is full of justice and equity, for it looks onely after Gods glory, not after this worlds advanta­ges, and therefore declares things as they are, not as they conduce to mens interests; secondly, it is full of authority, in all words and deeds still like it self, neither dissem­bling what is, nor pretending what is not, that it may please men rather then God, but saith with S. Paul, For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ, Gal. 1. 10. thirdly, 'tis full of modesty, rather delighting in extenuations of its own worth, then in amplifications of it; for though hy­pocrisie be a great talker, & a greater boast­er, yet Religion doth very much abhor all vain babbling, and much more all vain boasting; Not walking in crastiness, nor hand­ling the word of God deceitfully, but by mani­festation [Page 224] of the truth, commending it self in every mans conscience in the sight of God, 2 Cor. 4. 2. and therefore any Christian Church whatsoever, that either turns Re­ligion into State policy, making Christs in­terest subservient to its own; or that changes its Doctrine to please its new lords and ma­sters; or that boasts too much of its own Purity and Perfection, as if none could be Christians but in outward communion with it, none good Christians in comparison of it, must in these respects be said, not to be [...] true Church: for though it be Metaphysi­cally a true Church, yet is not so morally, not according to moral truth, for that it wants either equity, or authority, or modestie, or all three, that is to say, it wants some necessary attendant of moral truth.

And here I had rather bewail then exa­mine, rather deplore then detect the pre­sent condition of many Christian Churches: It is enough that the now so much despised and persecuted Church of England, cannot have it justly laid to her charge, that either she laboured to inter-weave her own with Christs interest, much less to advance her own interest above his for want of equity; or did not deal plainly with those Churches [Page 225] that did so, for want of authorite: or did re­vile other Reformed Churches (which sure­ly had not been infallible, could not be im­peccable) for want of modesty: and my hope is, that a Church so full of Moral truth, no less then of Metaphysical, as it hath the God of Truth to own it; so it will in due time finde the God of Power to vindicate, to re­store, and to defend it: however, I doubt not, but many good Christians had rather suffer in her afflicted communion, then reign in the prosperity and glory of those, who either do cause, or do not regard her afflicti­on. In the mean time, I cannot but pass this for a general animadversion; That since onely the true Catholick is the true Christi­an, and he hath two oposites, the pseudo­catholick, who is peccant in excess; and the anti-catholick, who is peccant in defect; it fares with these two opposites, as it fares with those two extreams that oppose the moral truth [...] The proud boaster loves to make shew of more then is; so doth the pseudo-catholick, who obtrudes more for Religion then can be proved Religion: [...] but the dissembler [Page 226] is quite contrary: for he denies things that are, and dimininishes what he doth not de­ny: so doth the anti-catholick, who denies that to be Religion which God hath made so, and diminisheth what he cannot deny: [...] ▪ (saith the same Authour) the boaster and the dissembler both are to be bla­med, because neither is so true a man as he ought to be, yet more the boaster then the dissembler.

So also in Religion: the pseudo-catholick seems farther from the truth for his super­additions, then the anti-catholick for his di­minutions: for he that avoweth uncertain­ties for certainties, brings a suspicion upon his faith, even in most undoubted truths; whereas he that is wary and timorous in the choice of his tenents, though he may be thought an enemy to his own knowledge, yet he cannot be thought an enemy to Gods truth: for though he may stick a while at the embracing of some divine truths, till they appear to him to be so; yet he can­not easily obtrude any untruths for truths; and God will sooner pardon the infirmity of a man in sticking at a truth, then the pre­sumption of a man in obtruding an untruth: [Page 227] for the first shews himself as a man subject to doubtings (not able to command his own faith) but the other would fain be account­ed little less then a God, in making himself not the Interpreter, but the Authour of truths; and so challenging a dominion over the faith of others: which however, ought not to dishearten us from knowing the do­ctrine of any Christian Church; for as of old it derogated nothing from the truth of God, that some Prophets did tell lies in his Name, so neither doth it now dero­gate from the truth of Religion, that there is so much mixture of mens inventions or surmises with that truth.

But we must say of all these tares, that an enemy hath sowed them whilest men slept; and yet we may not think Gods Providence over his Church either careless in not look­ing after it, or defective in looking after it to little purpose, as if he, that is the keeper of Israel, did sleep when Israel most needed keeping: for the Apostle hath said, Oportet haereses esse inter vos, 1 Cor. 11. 19. there must be sects or heresies amongst you, that they which are approved may be made manifest; as if he had said, That must be, for which there is a good reason why it should be, and there is [Page 228] a good reason why there should be heresies amongst you; nay, indeed two good reasons, the one on your parts, that you may be tried or proved; the other on Gods part, that they which are approved may be made mani­fest; to set forth the power and glory of Gods truth, which like the Sun shines the more gloriously when it hath broken through some great cloud that opposed it: for so much is true even of that wicked ob­jection, Rom. 3. 7. If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lye, unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 'tis most certain the Truth of God doth often more abound through our lies to his glory, and yet the Objection is so ungodly and unrea­sonable [why am I judged as a sinner?] that the Apostle doth not think it worth the answering, but onely silenceth such a de­sperate and prophane Disputant with a damnabitur, that he is like to be damned for his pains, v. 8. whose damnation is just: for no argument so fit to confute him as damnation, who will needs plead or dispute for the devil: Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death? Jud. 6. 31. what a shame is it for us Christians, that Baal should have [Page 229] so many to plead for him, and God so few? that Superstition and Faction should so much outstrip true Religion? the profes­sours of the one, (for they both meet in the same Baal, though they are so far asunder in themselves) going as much beyond the professours of the other in zeal, as they come short of them in truth: and yet still, since superstition and faction must needs be judged as sins, why should they not be jud­ged as sinners that maintain them? for neither should we finde a Disputant to de­fend it, if both be sins; neither should we find an advocate to plead for it, if both alike uphold the worship of Baal: and yet there are and will be swarms of such Advocates, multitudes of such Disputants, notwith­standing Joash hath said, Let them be put to death that so plead; and S. Paul hath more­over said, their damnation is just that so di­spute: for neither death nor damnation can silence the perverse disputings of men of corrupt mindes, and destitute of the truth, sup­posing that gain is godliness; wherefore St. Pauls advice to Timothy is, from such with­draw thy self, 1 Tim. 6. 5. and we are little beholding to the Latine Translation for ta­king no notice of this so necessary a text, [Page 230] yet God forbid we should therefore think it ought to be expunged out of the Greek Copies, wherein both Latine and Greek Church so joyntly agree, or else out of our own practise and observation: S. Pauls advice in controversies or rather corruptions of this nature, is, From such withdraw thy self, not against such oppose thy self: he ad­viseth us rather to have no communion with them, then to maintain disputations against them: for as in carnal uncleanness, the onely way for a man to have a clean bo­dy and a chaste soul is to flee fornication, 1 Cor. 6. 18. not to resist it; so is it also in this spiritual uncleanness, which makes men go a whoring after their own inventi­ons, we must rather avoid the temptation then think to overcome it, rather shun the Disputants then think to answer their di­sputations: for men whose faction is a­bove their Religion, will never be silenced by arguments of Religion; and men whose Interest is above their conscience, will never give any ear to the plea of Conscience: and this reason is in effect given by S. Paul him­self, why in such a case it is better to with­draw then to withstand, v. 3. For, saith he, if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to [Page 231] wholsome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is ac­cording to godliness, he is proud, knowing no­thing, but doting about questions and strifes of words: as if he had said, There is little hopes of doing good upon such a man, for if he would have hearkned to any wholsome words and not onely to flattering speeches, he would have hearkned to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: we may say to those words which Christ spake in his person, S. Matth. 22. 21. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods: (for those words alone, if rightly followed, would suffer no man to be a Pha­risee, that is, a Separatist, either in Church or State; for if men did give Caesar his due, there could be no sedition in the state; if they did give God his due, there could be no schism nor heresie in the Church:) but we must say to those words which Christ spake in his do­ctrine, whether immediately by himself or mediately by his Apostles; if such a Pharisee would have hearkned to wholsome more then to pleasing words, he would have heark­ned to the words of Christ which he deli­vered both in his person and in his doctrine: and if he would have received any doctrine [Page 232] but that which complied with his worldly interest, he would have received the do­ctrine which is according to godliness: but since he will neither hear the one, nor re­ceive the other, 'tis to little purpose to la­bour his conversion.

For first, he is ignorant in his under­standing [knowing nothing] [...], [...], saith Oecum. for he ‘who knows not that which he ought to know, is as if he knew nothing; nay, he is much worse, not onely possest with ig­norance, but also with a kinde of devil, as saith the same authour, [...], he that will not know God cannot but know the de­vil’; he that will not receive Christ and his wholsome words into his understanding, shall not be able to keep the devil and his poison­ous dictates out of it.

Secondly, he is pertinacious in his will, which appears from his contradiction, from his obstinacy, from his ambition.

His contradiction is discovered in that he teacheth otherwise, [...], saith Oecumen. he teacheth other things then those which of right are to be taught; we may say, he [Page 233] first teacheth otherwise then the Christian Church, opposing his novelty against her antiquity; but at last he teacheth other­wise then himself, opposing his own novel­ty with new and worse novelties: his obsti­nacy appears in this, he will remit nothing of his humour either for truth or peace, [...], others may come nearer him, but he will not come nearer them; he will not ap­proach, or as we render it, he will not consent to wholsome words, for if he draw near to the truth with his lips, yet his heart is far from it.

Lastly, His ambition and haughtiness of minde is seen, in that he is proud, he scorns to be a follower of any, but will be a leader of all, and takes more pleasure (because more pride) in being head of a faction, then in being an inferiour member of Christ, which shews his blindness, that he sees not the blessing of those who are of Christs communion, as well as his perversness that he will not joyn with those communicants; and accordingly the Apostle here useth a word that hinteth both, [...], that is, he is blinded as it were with smoke, for so Ulpi­an upon Demosthenes descanteth that word, [...], ‘some derive it from darkening the [Page 234] sight with smoke’, there's his blindness; again [...], saith the same Critick, ‘This word is derived from Typhon one of the Giants that was so mad with pride as to raise war against the gods: wherefore we say of a proud man that he is as that Typhon, there's his perverseness.’

Thus far a heathen Critick may be alled­ged to interpret this strange word here u­sed by S. Paul; but the Christian Divine who knew that this warring against God, which was but a fable in the Giant, was a truth in the devil, gives us this gloss, [...], ‘this kinde of pride (that first swells against the true Church, and at last against the God of truth) is a very great friend and compa­nion of the devils:’ so that the proud he­retick and the perverse schismatick (for they cannot well be parted, though they are very ill joyned) under a pretence of finding a new way to heaven, hath brought himself directly to hell gate, and being once there; the devil will not easily suffer him to go from thence, but he will forthwith teach [Page 235] him to spend all his time and zeal, upon idle questions, fit for none but those that dote; and upon quarrelsome disputations, fit for nothing but to beget new disputes and end­less contentions: for if you once turn Que­stionist in stead of Dogmatist, seeker in stead of beleever, you must needs fall into logomachies, strifes of words as endless as needless; therefore the Apostle saith, [...], sick about questions, [...], (saith Oecum.) see here, ‘To be a seeker is indeed to be sick,’ so to be sick in minde, and that in Tullies lan­guage is to be mad, Nomen insaniae signifi­cat mentis aegrotationem & morbum, (Cic. 3. Tuscul.) ‘for madness is nothing else but a sickness of the minde: and we cannot de­ny this if we observe the course of such a man, which is not’ [...] but [...], not to spend time, but to mispend it: [...], Diogenes appellat [...], & Euclidis [...], saith Laertius: ‘Diogenes theCynick called Plato's School­ing meer fooling, and said, to be Euclide's Scholar, was to be in choler;’ but S. Paul hath found out an expression that in one word speaks more then both these, though with less acrimony, and that is [...] [Page 236] (a second strange word here used by the Spirit of God, to shew here is set forth as strange a monster) such devices and trifles as are meer new nothings, whereby men do onely deceive themselves and seek to de­ceive others; for so Oecum. readeth and glos­seth the word out of S. Chrysostome, invert­ing the Prepositions, and reading not [...] but [...], and withal enlar­ging the sense; for [...] is an ill use of study and disputation, not to confirm the judgement but to unsettle it, not to disco­ver the truth but to dissemble it; which mischief may go no further then him alone who is guilty of the sin: but [...] is this same mischief as it seeks to corrupt and infect others: [...], saith Oecum. ‘the infecting others with this itch of vain disputing:’ for as a scabby sheep rubbing against those that are sound of the same flock, infecteth them with his touch, so do these men (that have itching ears, rambling heads, and hollow hearts) infect others by their conversation, saith S. Chrysost. and from him Oecumenius.

All this considered, 'tis easie to see the reason why S. Paul said to Timothy, From such withdraw thy self; he commands him [Page 237] as a Bishop to rebuke some Presbyters, cap. 5. v. 19, 20. which shews his jurisdiction o­ver them, but breaks not his communion with them, but he must have nothing at all to do with these, 'tis Oecumenius his ob­servation, [...]; he saith not, converse with such a man, and oppose him (converse with him according to your Christian Communion, and oppose him according to your Episco­pal Jurisdiction) but wholly depart from him after one or two admonitions; (which is supposed from cap. 1. v. 3. where Timothy is commanded to charge them not to preach other doctrine [...] the word u­sed here) for you shall never make that man your convert, who hath made mammon his God: and this indeed is the chief reason of the great distemper, and greater disturbance in Christendome, that many men are mam­mons rather then Gods Chaplains; and therefore are more ready to plead for Baal, (that is, for their own lording it over their brethren) then for God, more for Belial (that is, for their own licentiousness) then for Christ; hence it is, we have fiercer di­sputations [Page 238] against men, then for God: & the reconciliation would be easily effected, as to what concerns Gods interest, were it not im­peded and hindred by our own. Hence it is also, that many under a pretence of settling and regulating Religion, do indeed disturb and disorder it; and in stead of rightly gui­ding the Christian, do indeed misguide him; whiles they stand so much upon ceremonals which are of their own making, as that they much more neglect morals, which are Gods undoubted commands: and so desire to have their converts be some of Paul, some of Ap­pollos, some of Cephas, as they little regard, and less care to see they be truly all of Christ.

And yet amidst all these grand miscarria­ges of men, (which no Rhetorick can suffi­ciently express, no repentance can suffici­ently bewail) though we finde much that may trouble us in the practise of Religion, yet we finde nothing that can excuse us if we practise it not: for there is matter enough uncontroverted on all sides, to engage the whole soul of man, if we would take notice of that engagement: Satis ampla pietatis exercendae materia est in iis rebus de quibus u­trinque convenit: nam de side in Christum mortuum & resuscitatum pro nobis collocandâ, [Page 239] & de charitate Deo & proximo exhibendâ, controversia nulla est: at in his duobus capiti­bus pietatis summa consistit, saith the most judicious and pious Cassander, in his book De officio pii viri. What pitie is it that there should be the greatest defect, where is the least controversie amongst Christians? This made the forenamed Authour profess, that he was nothing at all satisfied with those men, who pretended, that the contentions of Christians hindred their progress in Christianity: ‘for (saith he) There is mat­ter enough for the exercise of piety, which is quite exempted from all con­troversie: for all sides agree, that we must be saved by faith in Christ crucifi­ed for our sins, and raised again for our ju­stification, and by the love of God for his own sake, and of our neighbour for Gods sake: and in these two heads (saith he) of faith and charity, is com­prised the sum of all true Christianitie:’ & Saint Paul had said no less before him, 1 Tim. 1. 5, 6. The end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and a good con­science, and of faith unfained, which Aqui­nas thus proves most substantially, Omnes enim virtutes de quarum actibus dantur prae­cepta, [Page 240] ordinantur vel ad purificandum cor à turbationibus passionum, sicut virtutes quae sunt circa passiones; vel saltem ad habendam bonam conscientiam, sicut virtutes quae sunt circa operationes; vel ad habendam rectam si­dem, sicut illae quae pertinent ad divinum cul­tum; & haec tria requiruntur ad diligendum Deum, nam cor impurum à Dei dilectione ab­str ahitur, propter passionem inclinantem ad terram; conscientia vero mala facit horrere divinam justitiam propter timorem poenae; fides autem ficta trahit affectum ad id quod de Deo fingitur, separans à Dei Veritate: (22^ae. qu. 44. art. 1.) ‘All the vertues whose acts are commanded in the Law, directly tend ei­ther to the purging of the heart from the disturbances of the passions, as those ver­tues which teach us to order our affecti­ons; or they tend to the getting and keep­ing of a good conscience, as those ver­tues that concern our works and operati­ons: or they tend to the getting and keeping of a true Faith, as those vertues which immediately concern the worship of God: and all these three are required to the true love of God: 1. A pure heart, for that else will cleave to the earth by its impurity: 2. A good con­science, [Page 241] for that else will run from God because of its guiltiness: 3. an unfained faith, for that else will follow a fiction in stead of God, and falsities in stead of his truth.’ This being taken for granted, which cannot rationally be denied, the meanest man that is will finde little cause to be discouraged or disheartened in the Chri­stian Religion, by reason of [...], or [...], or [...], from all which S. Paul so exceedingly dehorts S. Timothy, that there are amongst Christians so many strifes about words, and so many vanities (and novelties and emptinesses) in those strifes: for if he will have a diligent care of his own heart, that it may be pure; of his own conscience, that it may be good; and of his own faith, that it may be unfained, he will not dangerously neglect his duty either towards himself, or towards his neighbour, or towards his God; but will always finde matter enough to busie his soul here, and take a sure course to save his soul hereafter: & it is evident from the ensuing words, that none but they who swerve from these three, scil a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith unfained, do turn aside unto vain janglings.

And for this cause our blessed Saviour [Page 242] chides not onely the Scribes and Pharisees, but also the meanest of the common peo­ple, for not following and embracing the un­doubted truth, though there were at that time as great contentions in the Jewish, as are now in the Christian Church: S. Luke 12. 54, 56, 57. And he said also unto the people, Ye hypocrites, can ye discern the face of the sky, and of the earth; But how is it that ye do not discern this time? yea, and why even of your selves judge ye not what is right? He chides them for being quick-sighted in mat­ters of earth, but as it were pur-blinde in the things of heaven; that they could of them­selves judge rightly of the seasons for their profit, not so for their amendment; and not­withstanding he professeth that he came not to give peace on earth, but rather divisions, such as should divide the nearest and dear­est relations, from and against themselves; yet he gives no writ of ease to any man, that he should leave off being a judge in matters of his salvation; for if divisions hinder them not from judging what is right in husbanding their lands; why should they hinder them from judging what is right in husbanding their souls?

To apply this to our present purpose, [Page 243] since 'tis not in our power to doubt either of Christian faith, or Christian Charity, as ne­cessarily required, and immediately condu­cing to salvation; why should it be in our will to neglect them both: for this is in ef­fect to proclaim that we had rather with Martha be troubled about many things, then with Mary choose that good part which shall not be taken from us; it is in effect to declare, that we will have a Religion rather to serve our selves, then to serve our God; rather a­greeable with mens present humours, then with Gods eternal truth: otherwise our whole labour would be to conform our selves to that eternal truth in our understandings by faith, in our wills by charity, which two would make us also conformable thereto in our lives, either by our obedience, or by our repentance: so saith the Psalmist, Psal. 119. V. 104. Through thy precepts I get under­standing, therefore I hate every false way: as if he had said, Through thy word I get the knowledge of the saving truth, and that makes me avoid and abandon whatever is destructive of salvation: for every way is a false way that leads from truth, and from the God of truth; wherefore the Greek trans­lation thus renders the latter part of the [Page 244] verse, [...], I hate every wicked way: for a false way is a wicked way, and a wicked way is a false way, the Urim and Thummim being inseparably joyned to­gether; so that what is against the light of the truth, is also against the perfection of life: and indeed the way of wickedness is a false way, according to Aristotle's own deter­mination of falsity, who in the fifth of his Metaph. cap. 29. saith, that things are said to be false, ( [...]) ‘either because they are not in being; so a Chimaera, or a castle in the air, is said to be false: or because they make a false appearance, and beget in us false apprehensions; and so a glass that represents those colours, and those proportions which are not in the object, is called a false glass.’ In both these re­spects is the way of wickedness properly said to be a false way; both because it is defe­ctive in a true being, (for it is a meer non en­tity) and also because it is excessive in a false being; making a false appearance, and be­getting in us false apprehensions, as if it were pleasant and profitable, when as it is the onely cause of all our wo and misery, of all our punishment, whether of sense, or of loss.

[Page 245] And it is observable, that every irreligi­ous man hath in himself these two proper­ties of a liar, a wilfull liar, which is the falsest of all false men; [...] first, he loves and embraces that which is false, and secondly, he desires to propagate and derive it to others: so the irre­ligious man, (whether he be irreligious out of superstition, or out of faction) delights in the errour of his own way, and desires to bring others into the same perdition, as we finde it spoken by the mouth of truth, S. Matth. 23. 15. That Scribes, Pharisees, and Hypocrites compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, they make him twofold more the childe of hell then them­selves: factious men and hypocrites are much more zealous for their own new and false opinions, then for Gods eternal and un­doubted truth: so that were there nothing else in impiety and irreligion, but onely its own falseness, yet that alone were enough to make it eternally odious to God, the God of truth; and to the godly man, the lover of truth: for God cannot but be true, even as he cannot but be God; and as he is God, he is truth, for God is truth: and for this reason some Schole Divines do answer [Page 246] negatively to this question, ‘Whether God can dispence with a lie, as he can with the other commandments; and the reason is, because in his own essence he is truth;’ so the master of Advertencies upon S. Chrys. and the four Doctours of the Church, (S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, S. Au­gustine, and S Gregory) An Deus possit in mendacio dispensari, sicut in aliis praeceptis Decalogi? Negatur: Quia ex sua Essentia est Veritas. But we may go much further, because the truth will go along with us; for not onely the ninth Commandment, which requires us to be true men, is indispensable; but also all the rest of the moral Law, which requires us to be good men; for indeed we cannot be one without the other: therefore is all the moral Law alike indispensable, that is, all that is intrinsecally moral by its own nature, whereby we do not onely obey God, but also imitate him; and not extrinsecally moral, being made so by Gods command or by Divine precept, whereby we onely obey God, but do not imitate him: and the rea­son is, because all that is contrary to what is intrinsecally moral is a lie; and consequently contrary to the truth of God, and God cannot, will not dispence with his own truth.

[Page 247] And this is the cause that whatsoever is evil in it self, is necessarily displeasing unto God, and that indeed under a two­fold reason; for as it is evil in it self, and de­fective in a right being, so it is opposite to his goodness; and as it is a lie, and redun­dant or excessive in a false being by a coun­terfeit appearance and representation, so it is opposite to his truth. Men may, and do too much, out of stomack and animosi­tie oppose one another in matters of dispu­tation, but 'tis out of some spice of athe­isme, if they wilfully oppose Gods undoub­ted truth in matters of Religion; either speculatively by going in a false way, or practically by going in a wicked way.

The next communicable property in God, is Goodness in his Will, which appears in that he hath been so diffusive of himself, in communicating his being to the creature: therefore is our creation put as a ground of our thankfulness and thanksgiving, Psal. 149. 2. Let Israel rejoice in him that made him; which could not be if God had not created us out of his Goodness to give us a good being, to make us the object of his mercy; but out of his power, that by his ab­solute dominion, he might give us an ever­lasting [Page 248] ill being, to make us the object of his justice. Therefore 'tis an excellent po­sition of the Protestant Divines in Col­loquio Mempelgertensi, recited by Osiander, Neque ex lege, neque ex ratione humana, sed ex solo Evangelio de praedestinatione electo­rum judicandum est, ‘That neither out of the law, nor out of humane reason, but onely out of the Gospel, can we rightly judge of the predestination of the elect;’ and the Gospel condemns none for repro­bates, but those who despising the riches of Gods goodness and forbearance, by their infidelitie and impenitencie, heap upon themselves damnation.

But let us more particularly consider this Goodness of God both in regard of it self, and also in regard of us.

First, In regard of it self, and so it is an essential and universal Goodness, demon­strable these three ways, per viam effici­entiae, per viam sufficientiae, per viam emi­nentiae, as saith Bonavent. ‘by the way of efficiencie, for he made all that is good; by the way of sufficiencie, for he satisfieth the desire of all with good; & by the way of eminencie, for all that is good being made by him’, is most eminently in him that made it,

[Page 249] Secondly, Consider we this Goodness of God in regard of us, and so 'tis the rule or exemplarie cause of all goodness in man; for our good of Nature is according to the image of God the Father; our good of Grace is according to the Image of God the Son; our good of Glory shall be according to the Image of God the Holy Ghost: for as the Father and the Son enjoy each other in the communion of the holy Spirit, so shall we enjoy them in the same communion. And thus also is the Goodness of Religion, in it self it is an universal and essential goodness, demonstrable by way of efficiency, that it makes men good (those that have it, though not all those that profess it;) by way of sufficiency, that it makes men con­tented; (St Paul and Silas were better con­tented in their prison, then the Magistrates that put them there, were in their palaces) and by way of eminency, for that must needs be eminently good, which hath filled the earth with so much goodness, which were it not for Religion, would be filled with nothing but rapine and unrighteousness.

Again, In regard of us, the goodness of Religion is the rule or exemplary cause of all goodness; Similitudo formae est in om­ni [Page 250] agente, vel secundùm esse naturale vel se­cundùm esse intelligibile, (saith Aqu. par. 1. qu. 15.) ‘The similitude of every form is in the agent that labours for that form, either according to its natural, or accord­ing to its intellectual being;’ so is the si­militude of Religion in every man that works according to Religion, God saying unto us in the Gospel, Go and do likewise, (S. Luk. 10. 37.) as he said in the Law, See thou do it according to the pattern in the mount. the form in the beginning of the action is the end, but in the end of the a­ction it is the form; so also is Religion the end of our living, and the form or pattern of our life: as the knowledge and love of God was the form of man in his first creati­on (as being the Image of God in him) and yet withal the end for which he was created.

The third communicable property in God is Purity in his Action; for as is his Power so is his Purity; since all matter of impurity is also matter of Impotency: and most true is that position of Divines, Removentur a Deo actiones culpabiles, poenales, corporales & in­convenientes, ‘all culpable or penal, or cor­poral or inconvenient actions are remo­ved far from God;’ we may say in one [Page 251] word, all impure actions: so that in saying Gods work is pure, we do in effect say, it is holy as not culpable, it is unpassionate as not penal, it is unwearied as not corporal, it is unblameable as not inconvenient.

But it shall be enough at present to say God is pure, as loving purity, and command­ing it, and as punishing impurity.

First, God is pure as loving purity, Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God, S. Matth. 5. 8. the eye of the soul is to be re­fined and purged, before it can behold such a heavenly beauty; hence it is that the voice of reason proclaims our sinfull eyes to be as bats eyes when they should discern some more excellent created truths, ( [...] saith Ar. 2. Metaph.) how much more doth the voice of Religion pro­claim our dimness of sight when we should discern that one supereminent uncreated truth: for as the bird that is used to dark­ness, cannot endure to see the Sun; so also a man that is habituated to the works of dark­ness cannot look upon the Father of lights, and much less stedfastly six his eyes upon the Sun of righteousness.

Secondly, God is pure as commanding Purity, S. Iames 4. 8. cleanse your hands you [Page 252] sinners, and purisie your hearts ye double-min­ded; an impure minde is a double minde, so thinking of heaven, as also (and much ra­ther) of earth: that minde onely is pure, which is a single minde, and that minde onely is single which thinks of heaven, where is very much to settle and to com­pose, but nothing at all to distract & divide the soul: wherefore he that thinks wholly of earth, cannot draw near to God, and con­sequently God will not draw near to him; and what is the effect of Gods being at a di­stance from us, is most terrible to think, and yet more terrible to finde: which made the Psalmist cry out so earnestly, Psal. 69. 19. Draw nigh unto my soul & save it; for if God be far off, we can have no hope of salvation.

Thirdly, God is Pure as punishing impu­rity. Our Saviour did cast out all wicked spi­rits, but he is said most of all to have rebu­ked the unclean spirits: and S. Paul advising us to cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, as having the pro­mises, 2 Cor. 7. 1. doth plainly shew, that we can have no good of Gods promises as long as we continue in any filthiness ei­ther of flesh or spirit; and if we have not a share in his promises, we are sure to [Page 253] have a share in his punishments:

And thus also is Religion pure in its acti­on, as doing what is pure; and pure in its af­fection, as wishing and requiring others to do it; and pure also in its disaffection, as punishing those who delight in impurity; nor can any man be impure and impenitent in his impurity, and not be excommunica­ted by the Canon of Religion, though ha­ply the Canon of the Church may not take notice of him, or not be able to reach him. This consideration of Gods Purity should make us repent and abhor our selves in dust and ashes, because of our manifold impurities, for the heavens are unclean in his sight, Job 15. 15. nay, the purest bodies of heaven, the moon, and the stars, Job 25. 5. nay, the purest spirits of heaven, the angels, Job 4. 18. (he charged his Angels with folly:) so that we need not (with Rabbi David) be o­vermuch inquisitive why Isaiah's Seraphins have six wings, when Ezekiels Cherubins have but four; for the Prophet himself gives the reason of six, Isa. 6. 2. twain to sly withall, there's the readiness of their obe­dience; twain to cover their faces, as not daring to see (saith Targum) there's their reverence; and twain to cover themselves, [Page 254] as not daring to be seen (saith the same Pa­raphrast) there's their fear; if these three vertues, Obedience, Reverence and Fear, be so truly angelical, what are our contrary vices, not onely in Gods presence, but also in his service, but such as we may be asha­med to name, and much more afraid to own, that is to say, diabolical? for if all these purest creatures of heaven be impure in his sight, and tremble at the thought of their impurity; how much more we that are of earth, nay, of the most contemptible part of the earth, of the dust of the earth, Gen. 2. 7. and daily groveling in that dust by our affections, before we return to it by our dis­solution, and in that respect alone, fitly cal­led worms twice together in one breath, Job 25. 6. man that is a worm, and the Son of man that is a worm: we then who have the most impurity, ought not to have the least trem­bling, but as we have out-passed those ten Lepers in our uncleanness, so we may not come short of them in their holy fear and faith; for as their fear made them stand afar off, so their faith made them lift up their voices, and say, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us, S. Luc. 17. 12, 13. then will he give us such a purity as will not onely make us shew our [Page 255] selves to the Priest, but also to our God; such a purity as will wash our eyes to see him, and much more our hearts to love him: for so saith S. Peter, Act. 15. 9. purisying their hearts by faith; not a faith which costs the purse no alms, the body no fasting, the soul no praying (for no true Israelite will ever offer that unto the Lord which cost him no­thing, 2 Sam. 24. 24.) but a faith which so purifies the soul by knowing the truth, as much more by obeying it; for so saith the same Apostle, Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, un­to unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently 1 S. Pet. 1. 22. this is the purity of the true Religion, it purifies the soul not onely by faith, but also by obedience, and by love, which yet are now generally farthest from many men, who would fain be thought to come nearest Purity.

Thus we have seen Gods truth in his un­derstanding, his goodness in his will, and his purity in his action, & it still remains that we consider his Liberty, as belonging to them all; for Liberty being nothing else but the dominion and power of action, must needs be originally in the understanding, which [Page 256] alone is able to judge and deliberate of what is to be done, what not; formally in the will, which resolves to do or not to do; but effectually 'tis onely in the action, which is the product of the said deliberate resolution: this liberty is now briefly to be handled; First, as it is in God, and then as it is in Religion for being the service of God:

Gods Liberty is seen in five respects; in that he is free from sin, free from misery, free from obligation, free from servitude, and free from coaction, which is the reason that he can both will and do, what and when, and where himself pleaseth.

I need not insist on the proof of these, for to name them is to prove them, nor can any man deny Gods Liberty in any of these respects, but he must deny him to be God; and in all these same respects we may see and must acknowlege the Liberty of Religion, and to deny it to be free in any of these is to deny it to be Religion, that is to say, the service of God; and to make it to be state policy, that is to say, the service of men.

First, Religion is free from sin; for the superstition, and faction, and profaneness, and other sins that are so rife among Chri­stians to the dishonour of Christ, and the re­proach [Page 257] of Christendome, is a rust that cleaves to the men (who are little better then iron) not to the Religion, which is as pure as the Refiners fire; and therefore it is not safe nor fit to say of any order or kinde of Christians, that their Religion is rebelli­on, and their faith is faction, though we can­not deny of too too many orders and kindes of men who profess Religion, that they are both rebellious and factious.

Secondly, Religion is free from misery; ask the three children in the fiery furnace, they will say, their Religion had made them persecuted; they will not say, that it had made them miserable; they profess that they were delivered into the hands of law­less enemies, most hatefull apostates, [ [...]] (meaning sure those of their own brethren which had renounced the Law of Moses and their Religion, and helped the Babylonians to persecute and in­fest Jerusalem) and to an unjust King, and the most wicked in all the world, [ [...]:] thus those blessed Martyrs will tell you, they were in persecution (the greatest that ever was) but they will not tell you they were in misery; nay it seems they told the quite [Page 258] contrary, for none else could have told it but from their mouths, that the angel of the Lord came down into the oven, and smote the flame of fire, and made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind; but you will say, these men were partial witnesses in their own cause, therefore ask their persecutors, they will tell you the same, for the Princes, Governours and Captains, and the Kings Counsellours being gathered to­gether, saw these men upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them: nay ask Nebuchadnezzar himself, who was the authour of the persecution, and he will tell you that though he had caused these holy men to be so much afflicted, yet he could not cause them to be miserable; for at that instant when he had thought they had been burnt to ashes, he heard them sing in the flames (as saith the Greek Translation, [...]) and that (probably) made him look about to see whence that melody proceeded, and finding so sweet a breath to come from the blast of his fire, he was astonied and rose up in haste, and went to the mouth of the fur­nace [Page 259] (which before bade him keep his di­stance, in that it consumed his officers) and called forth the holy and blessed Martyrs, who having been delivered from a present death, could not be looked on but as men newly risen from the dead.

Thirdly, Religion is free from obligation; there is no greater humane obligation then that of nature, and there is no greater na­tural obligation then that which we owe to our Parents; yet that may not be alledged to keep us from serving God: so Aquinas determines the case, Si ergo cultus parentum abstrahat nos a cultu Dei, non jam esset pie­tatis, parentum insistere cultui contra Deum, & ideo in tali casu dimittinda sunt officia pie­tatis in parentes propter divinum Religionis cultum (22 ae qu. 101. art. 4.) ‘If our duty to our Parents take us away from our du­ty to our God (as if the Father should command his son to turn rebel or Idolater, or the like) we must forsake our parents and cleave to God, and shew the preva­lency of that duty we owe to God, by be­ing undutifull to our parents, in such a case:’ again, there is no civil obligation greater then that we owe to our Gover­nours; yet, if they command us to sin a­gainst [Page 260] God, by not speaking nor teaching, by not praying nor preaching in the Name of Iesus, we have our answer put into our mouths (and God put it into our hearts, lest atheism get possession there in stead of Christ) whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you, more then unto God, judge ye, Act. 4. 19. there is no obligation of man that can reach to the altar of God, to make us either neglect it or defile it: usque ad aras did stint the heathen, and much more the Christian in his obedience; he that obeys the Magistrare to the altar, gives him his right; he that obeys him beyond or above the altar, doth him wrong, load­ing his authority with that sin which can­not help to hold it up, but may help to pull it down: it is much to be observed that among all the high Priests of the Jewish Temple, none hath that signal character of recommendation in the Text, that is, gi­ven to Azariah, because he withstood Uz­ziah the king when he invaded the Priests office, 2 Chr. 26. 17. therefore saith the ho­ly Ghost concerning him, he it is that exe­cuted the Priests office in the Temple that Solo­mon built at Jerusalem, 1 Chron. 6. 10. as if none had been high Priest but he, who had [Page 261] so zealously so magnanimously vindicated the honour and the authority of the Priest­hood: for this is Rabbi Davids gloss upon the place; he was not the first Priest of So­lomons temple, for that was Zadok; nor was he the onely high Priest, for there were ma­ny others; but our Rabbies say, this was A­zariah in the days of Uzziah, who gave his minde to the holiness of the Temple, and would not let Uzziah offer Incense; there­fore it is said of him, this is he that was the high Priest, because he was zealous for the glory of the Priesthood, and accepted not the person of Uzziah, so Kimchi. And it appears again, that this Azariah was not to be named without some special note or title of honour; for in the ninth Chapter, and the eleventh verse, after the reciting of his Ancestors, though some of them had exe­cuted the same office as well as himself, yet he alone is called the Ruler of the house of God, 1 Chro. 9. 11. none had kept so good rule and order in the house of God as he, therefore none so fit to be called a ruler of it: And if Thomas Becket did indeed stand meerly upon Gods interest in the controver­sie betwixt him and his Liege Soveraign; the doctors of Paris did very ill in disputing [Page 262] eight and fourty years after his death, whe­ther he were damned or saved; for no duty that he owed to his King, could oblige him to be undutifull to his God, and if he suffer­ed death for not being undutifull to his Fa­ther in heaven, there is no doubt but as a dutifull childe he received his inheritance; yet in that the Doctours disputed it so long after, it is evident, that his Festival was not presently instituted in the Latine Church, (much less celebrated with this Preface, Gaudeamus omnes in Domino, diem festum ce­lebrantes sub honore Thomae Martyris, de cu­jus Passione gaudent Angeli, & collaudant Fi­lium Dei: ‘Let us all rejoyce in the Lord, celebrating a Festival for the honour of Thomas the Martyr, for whose passion the Angels rejoyce and praise the Son of God:’ by which Preface, the Festival of this sup­posed Martyr, is preferred before the Pro­to-martyrs in dignity, though it follow the same three days after in time:) or else the Doctours of Paris did think it lawfull, if not laudable, to dispute against the solemnities of their own Church, when they found so much done upon so little ground; and did also themselves in effect declare, that as no civil authority could, so likewise no ecclesia­stical [Page 263] authority can oblige equally with God, much less either above him or against him.

Fourthly, Religion is free from servitude; the Church may be in bondage, not so the Religion that makes a Church; the Isra­elites asked liberty of Pharaoh for them­selves to go and serve God; they asked not liberty for Gods Service, that had never been in durance nor in captivity: and S. Paul very plainly determines this controversie, (for so profane men are willing to make it when Gods Church is under persecution, though in it self it be an undoubted truth) 2 Tim. 2. 9. I suffer trouble as an evil doer, e­ven unto bonds, but the word of God is not bound: the bonds that are upon the hands are far from the tongue, and farther from the heart; they cannot hinder an honest man from speaking Gods truth amidst the enemies thereof, much less from loving it: excellently Oecumenius, [...], no bonds can fetter the tongue but onely fearfulness and unfaithful­ness, and those are ingredients of the worlds, not of Gods Religion.

Fifthly and lastly, Religion is free from Coaction, there is no oblation so acceptable as that which is voluntary, and there is no [Page 264] oblation so voluntary as that whereby a man offers himself to God: therefore it is the doctrine of the Church, that the children of Jews and other Infidels who never em­braced the Christian faith, ought not to be baptized without their Parents consent, till they can give their own; not onely because it is against the justice of nature, to take the childe from his own Parents whilest he is yet as it were a limb or part of them, (which he must needs be till he can dispose of himself) but also because it is against the nature of Religion, to offer unto God an unvoluntary Sacrifice: and for the same reason, though the Church never thought she could be sufficiently zealous in propaga­ting the Catholick Faith, yet she never thought that Jews and Pagans were to be compelled to embrace it, onely they were to be compelled not to hinder or to bla­spheme it; so Aquinas 22ae qu. 10. art. 8. Utrum infideles compellendi sint ad sidem? ‘Whether Infidels are to be compelled to the Christian Faith? he answers with a distinction, those Infidels that never re­ceived the Faith, are not to be compelled to it, quia credere est voluntarium, because to beleeve is to give a voluntary assent; [Page 265] but those Infidels who once received the Faith, and are since fallen from it (as he­reticks and apostates) are to be compel­led by corporal punishments to become regular and orderly Christians, that they may be made to fullfil their promise, and to retain what they did receive:’ Nam sicut vovere est voluntatis, sed reddere est necessita­tis; ita fidem accipere est voluntatis, sed tenere eam acceptam est necessitatis: ‘For as it is voluntary to make a vow, but necessary to keep it when it is made; so it is voluntary to receive the faith, but necessary to retain it when it is received.’ And St. Augustine in the second Book of his Retractations, ca. 5. doth most ingenuously recall his former opi­nion; that schismaticks were not to be con­strained and compelled to the communion of the Church, ‘I retract (saith he) that in my first Book against the party of Do­natus; I did say, I was not pleased that the secular power should violently force schis­maticks to the communion of the Church,’ & verè mihi tunc non placebat, quia nondum expertus eram vel quantum mali eorum aude­ret impunitas, vel quantum eis in melius mu­tandis, conferre possit diligentia Disciplinae; ‘and indeed this course then pleased me [Page 266] not, because I had not yet seen the expe­riment, either how much mischief their uncurbed licentiousness would produce, or how much the diligence of a severe disci­pline would conduce to their amendment:’ so St Augustine: and yet all this while, the coaction or compulsion doth in truth reach no farther then to conformity and order; it reacheth not to Religion, which can no more be driven into the hearts of hypocrites by the power of the lawfull Magistrate, then it can be driven out of the hearts of true be­leevers by the outragious persecutions of Tyrants and Atheists: so that we must con­clude, that though none are more exposed to violence then religious and godly men, (for he that would needs make his beloved Son perfect with sufferings, will not make his unworthy servants perfect without them) yet Religion it self is wholly exem­pted from all violence, being the Queen Re­gent of heaven and earth, to give com­mands both to angels and men, but to re­ceive commands of neither.

CHAP. VII.

IN the last place, we come to the attri­butes of God, which are as it were exter­nal perfections, belonging to him in regard of his creature; though not to be truly and fully known from our creation, but from our redemption; for no one attribute of God is rightly understood by those who are not of the Church of God; not his Justice, for they know not God in himself, that he is of purer eyes then to look on iniquity; not his Mercy, for they know not God in his Son, in whom alone he sheweth mercy: not his Wis­dome, for they know not God in his word, the fountain of all true wisdome: not his Truth, for they know not God in his promises, and cannot say, he is faithfull that promised, Heb. 10. 23. and so of the rest: they that are not of Gods Church cannot know his attributes, because they are not to be known from our creation, but from our redemption; and they that are most truly of Gods [Page 268] Church, that is to say, non numerò sed me­ritò, as Aquinas hath distinguished not one­ly by outward profession, but also by inward affection, do most truly understand Gods Attributes: they clearly see the severity of his Justice, requiring a full satisfaction for sin: they clearly see the goodness of his Mercy accepting of satisfaction from his Son, when he could not have it from his ser­vant: they clearly see that vast Wisdome which found out this way to save man when he was lost: and they clearly see that un­changeable Truth, which both calls and brings him to salvation.

But I will follow my former method, and insist onely on the chief Attributes, to which the rest have relation, and may therefore have reduction: and these Attributes are three, Justice, Grace, and Mercy: Justice, whereby he renders to every man according to his works; Grace, whereby he freely gives what is wanting to us, and Mercy whereby he freely forgives what is due unto himself; these I say belong to God in relation to the creature: for though his Iustice flow from his Truth, yet he could not shew that ju­stice either in punishing or in rewarding, were there not a creature to be punished or [Page 269] rewarded; so likewise his Grace in giving, and Mercy in forgiving, though they flow from his Goodness and his Liberty (which they deny who will not let him have mercy on whom he will have mercy) yet he could neither shew his Grace in giving, nor his Mercy in forgiving, were there not an indi­gent creature to want his giving, and a sinfull creature to want his forgiving.

The first of these Attributes is Iustice, which we must first contemplate in God, and then in Religion as it is his service.

God is just by universal, and by particular Iustice:

First, By universal Iustice, and that in two respects; both in regard of himself, as willing and doing all manner of right: (Shall not the judge of all the earth do right? Gen. 18. 25.) and also in regard of us, being the rule of all justice in man: Ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgement, 2 Chron. 19. 6.

Secondly, God is just by particular Iustice, retributing to every man according to his works, Rom. 2. 6. who shall render to every man according to his works: and v. 5. the day of judgement is called [...], the day of Gods righteous judgement, [Page 270] because it is all one in him to judge, and to judge righteously: thus did S. Chrysostome qualifie the mistake, or rather recti­fie the abuse which was in some inconside­rate men from Gods decree of election; Thou sayest that God hath predestinated; and I say, that God is a righteous judge, and will reward thee according to thy deser­vings.

But 'tis objected against Gods universal justice, that he commanded some things contrary to his own Law, as Abraham to slay Isaac, and the Israelites to spoil the Egypti­ans; the one against the sixth, the other a­gainst the eighth commandment. 'Tis an­swered by some Divines, Generali derogans speciali voluntate: that God did in these ca­ses derogate from his general will by his spe­cial will: but we may not easily approve this answer; because Gods will cannot clash with it self, and therefore he may not be said to command that by his special, which he forbids by his general will; and conse­quently, God in commanding Abraham to kill his son, did not make murder lawfull, but made that killing no murder, by passing upon Isaac the sentence of death: and com­manding the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians, [Page 271] did not make it lawfull to rob and steal; but made that spoiling no robbery, since he who was Lord of all had translated the right of property: and this is most acutely dicussed by the Master of subtilties, (Scotus in lib. 1. sent. dist. 44.) Quando in potestate agentis est Lex, & rectitudo Legis, potest tale agens ordinatè & rectè agere, aliter quàm Lex illa dictat; quia non subest illi Legi, & sic ejus po­tentia absoluta non est inordinata: ‘When the Law and the justice of the Law are both in the power of the agent, we need not then fear any obliquity in the action, whether he act by his ordinary, or by his absolute power:’ for if by his ordinary power he act not according to the law, by his absolute power he can make the law to be in that case no law; and where there is no law, there is no transgression: this rule being allowed, which cannot be denied,, we shall little need to patronize Gods, justice in com­manding Abraham to kill his son, who was guilty of death; nor yet in delivering over his own Son to the death of the cross, who knew no sin, and therefore could have no guiltiness: nor shall we need to say, That the Israelites had but their due from the Egyptians, for making so much brick, and [Page 272] building so many cities, (although that be an answer recommended to us by great anti­quity, for so Irenaeus lib. 4. advers. IIaeres. cap. 49. Labores enim quos pro Egyptiis im­meritò pertulerunt Israelitae, precium rerum acceptarum excessêrunt,) for Gods will being the rule of justice, 'tis evident, 'that what­soever he wills is just because he wills it: therefore since he willed the death of Isaac, it could be no murder; and his willing the spoiling of Egypt, made it no theft: for murder or theft he cannot will, because ei­ther is intrinsecally evil; but he can make that no murder, or that no theft, which else would be so, by giving one man authoritie over anothers life, or property, as being himself supreme and absolute Lord of all: for that rule of law and reason so much in­sisted upon against tyrannical governours, Pars est justitiae Rectoris, servare leges à se la­tas, It is a part of justice in a Governour, to keep his own laws, is true onely amongst men, where making a law is not an act of absolute dominion, proceeding from the power to dispose of life, or property, or li­berty, but an act of government for the pre­servation of good order in them all: but in God the making of a law is an act of abso­lute [Page 273] dominion, and he can by his absolute power and authority so dispose of libertie, or property, or life; that to take away libertie may be no oppression, to take away proper­ty may be no stealing, to take away life may be no murder: and it is more proper to say, that God wills the alteration, making that which otherwise had been evil, not evil, and consequently not forbidden; then that he wills the dispensation, making that which is forbidden, not evil: for if God wills any thing, it cannot possibly be evil, but is therefore good and just because he wills it; nor needs there any other proof or reason of his justice, even as there cannot be any other reason of his will; so that Johanan and his fellow captains, might without any scruple of conscience, or staggering of faith, say unto Jeremiah, Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, Jer. 42. 6. for the command of God could not but make that good, which otherwise might happily have been evil. Hence the Apostle answers this objection, Is there unrighteousness with God? no other­wise but by his will; Rom. 9. 14. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and he that will not take this answer, is looked [Page 274] upon as a very foul disputant, as one that denies principles, & therefore not to be dis­puted withall, v. 20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? as if he had said, Here I dare not dispute, and how darest thou? sure we are, he had the Spirit of God who gave this answer, and there­fore if we have the same Spirit, we cannot but take it: but yet in the 21 verse the answer is not onely to the person, but also to the thing, and it is fully resolved into Gods Power, Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? If he hath not power, he cannot do it; if he hath power, we in vain dispute against his doing it; whether it be potentia absoluta, his ab­solute power, which respects jus dominii, his right of soveraignty and dominion, to do with his creature what he will; or potentia ordinata, his ordinary power, which respects jus imperii, his right of government, to do with his creature what is just, it is in effect all one; for his will is the rule of justice, and his power is the measure of his will.

We can never overthrow his power by our disputations, but we may turn it into mercy by our submission: and sure if we look [Page 275] to come to blessedness, we must follow their examples who are in the state of bliss; and they in all their hymns do still ascribe power unto God, Rev. 19. 5. Allelujah, that is, Praise the Lord; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth; they thankfully acknowledge the power of his kingdome, and as willingly sub­mit unto that power; to teach us, that there is no fruition of his mercy, without submissi­on to his power; for his power is the activity of his will, as his will is the result of his wisdome: and as his will is a sufficient reason of his power in working, (for who hath resist­ed his will?) so his wisdome is a sufficient reason of his will in ordering his works; for who hath known the minde of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?

Wherefore we must always take this for a sure ground, that the will of God, as it is with power, so it cannot be without wisdome, and consequently not without justice, which is the dispensation of wisdome; and this will either instruct our ignorance, that we may be sure to dispute for God, or over-rule our perversness, that we may be silenced from disputing: most seraphically Bonaventure in 1. sent. dist. 41. Cavendum est, nè dum voluntatem Dei magnificare volumus, potiùs [Page 276] voluntati ejus derogemus: si enim non esset alia ratio, quare Deus istum elegit, & illum non, ni­si quia placet; certè non jam occulta dicerentur divina judicia, sed manifesta, cùm quilibet hanc rationem capiat; nec dicerentur mirabilia, sed potiùs voluntaria: &c. ‘We must take heed, lest whiles we seek to magnifie the will of God, we rather derogate from his will: for if there be no other reason why God elected this man, and not that man, but onely because it pleased him, surely the judgements of God would not be called secret, but manifest: for every man understands this reason, nor should we say that his judgements are wonder­full, but rather that they are wilfull.’

I will conclude this debate with the pious determination of S. Augustine, Iudicia Dei secreta esse possunt, injusta non possunt: ‘The judgements of God may be unknown, but they cannot be unjust:’ for he cannot will without his wisdome, (and therefore not without his justice) as he cannot work with­out his will; he that is not unwise in his will, cannot be unjust in his will; and he that is not unjust in his will, is much less unjust in his work: and so briefly in defence of Gods universal ustice.

[Page 277] Again, it is objected against Gods parti­cular justice, that he blesseth Edom, and af­flicteth Israel: 'Tis answered, Edom may have temporal success, but that's no bles­sing: for there is no greater unhappiness then for a man to prosper in his sins, where­by his eyes are blinded, and his heart is hardned; and therefore the prosperity of the wicked, as it begins not in a blessing, so it ends in a curse. Thus Ieroboams rebelli­on prospered, to make the ten tribes first lose their Religion, then their libertie and property: first, to make them idolaters, and after that to make them captives and bond­slaves: for their rebellion occasioned their idolatry, and their idolatry occasioned their captivity. On the contrary, Israel may have temporal affliction, but 'tis no curse; nay in­deed properly no punishment: Habet ratio­nem medicinae, non poenae, God chastising his servants not to torment them, but to amend them: but let the one go for prosperity, the other for adversity, because the world will needs think them so: then take this for a second answer, not concerning Edom: for he is not worth it in all his prosperity; but concerning Israel. First, Non poena sinalis, 'tis no final punishment, it lasteth not long, [Page 278] much less for ever: Heaviness may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. Secondly, Non pietas totalis; Israel when he was at best, could not but say, His father was an Amorite, and his mother a Hittite, when he had most of God and of pietie, he had more of man, and what he had of man he had of sin and impiety. Thirdly, Impie­tas totalis; though their piety was not per­fect, their impiety was so: for they were guil­ty of a general defection and apostasie as God himself objecteth and answereth this doubt, Jer. 5. 19. Wherefore doth the Lord our God all these things unto us? Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not yours: [...] saith Rabbi David, measure for measure, like for like; we may say [...] justitiae divinae, the retaliation of Gods justice, desertion for de­sertion: nay, God himself hath said it, Ye would needs be serving strange gods, ye shall now serve strange men. And it is observa­ble, that before God generally deserted the Jews, giving them up to captivity & slaugh­ter, they had generally deserted him, giving themselves up to their own inventions and impieties: which makes God accordingly [Page 279] ask the question of himself and of them, shall I not visit for these things? Jer. 5. 29. Gods visitation is a great argument of mans disorder: the people of Israel were now generally out of order, and for that cause were generally visited; Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? [Such a na­tion as this,] all nations are wicked, & pro­voke Gods wrathfull indignation for venge­ance, but 'tis such a nation as this, that makes his soul desire to be avenged; such a nation, that is so wicked beyond the rest, that sins so impudently against the light, so unthank­fully against the means, so impenitently a­gainst the power of grace.

First, so impudently against the light of grace; for he saith, Pour out thine indigna­tion upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name, Psal. 79. 6. much more then upon Israel, that hath known thee, and yet hath not called upon thy Name, but hath persecuted those that did call upon it, as if they had ra­ther been the enemies, then the servants of the living God: for if outer darkness be a just punishment for not rightly using the twilight of nature, what darkness of darkness shall pu­nish the abuse of the clear sun-shine of the light of grace?

[Page 280] Secondly, so unthankfully against the means of grace, accompanied with Gods own holy Spirit, which made S. Stephen say, Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and cars, ye do always resist the holy Ghost, Act. 7. 55. you are uncircumcised in your hearts, and hate the saving truth, and that makes you uncircumcised in ears that you will not hear it: he tels them plainly, that they are not onely revolters from the truth, but also rebels against it: for here is a spi­ritual rebellion against the Spirit of God, and therefore against the God of spirits; ye do indeed make resistance, ye do alwaies resist the holy Ghost: so great an undutifulness could not have been without a greater un­thankfulness; men being first unthankfull to God for his Word and Sacraments in neglecting them, and then undutifull against both, to justifie their neglects.

Thirdly, so impenitently against the pow­er of grace; for these means of falvation are powerfull means: hence is the Gospel cal­led by St. Paul, the power of God unto salva­tion, Rom. 1. 16. and the preaching of the cross, called, unto them that are saved, the power of God, 1 Cor. 1. 18. that is, the power of God to salvation; for 'tis also to them [Page 281] that are not saved the power of God, but to condemnation: hence the Apostle plainly reproveth those that are not reformed by the preaching of the Word, and admini­string of the Sacraments, as denying this power of godliness, 2 Tim. 3. 5. having a form of godliness, that is, having the word and Sa­craments, but denying the power thereof, that is, not one jot the better for having them.

Now then in this case, here is the abuse both of Word and Sacraments, which one­ly constitute a Church, no wonder then if this abuse overthrow a Church: and these two were in the Jews before their final de­solation; not the Sacraments rightly ad­ministred, for not a passover in any good order for many years together: not the Word rightly preached, for the Prophets prophesie falsly, saith the Text, Jer. 5. 31. and the more falsly they prophesied, the more generally they were received, which makes the Spirit of God use this exclamati­on, a wonderfull and horrible thing is commit­ted in the land, q.d. Clergie and Laitie are both alike quite out of order, for it is com­mitted in the land, and both so shamefully out of order, that it must be called, a won­derfull and a horrible thing that is commit­ted [Page 282] by them, or as the Hebrew terms it, an astonishment, or an abomination: but what is this abomination? Even the general apo­stasie both of the Clergie and of the Laitie, of the Priests and of the people, the Pro­phets prophesie falsly, there's the apostasie of the Clergie: and my people love to have it so, there's the apostasie of the Laitie: for thus had Ieroboam taught them to make their own Priests, that so they might make their own Religion; for no other would worship his golden calves, but Priests of his own, not of Gods making, 1 King. 12. yet dares he not finde fault with the appointed service of the Temple, or the Religion e­stablished, as with that which was vicious, but onely as with that which was too labou­rious, v. 28. It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; then he proceeds to make Priests of the lowest of the people which were not of the sons of Levi, v. 31. because his designe was to appeal to the people; and he therefore appealed to the people, that they might think the right of Soveraignty and Dominion to be, where they found ac­knowledged the right of appeal, to wit, in themselves, and stifle the thought of ever returning that obedience which was but [Page 283] matter of courtship or of courtesie, not of duty or of necessity: and moreover, he made Priests of the lowest of the people; that by their false doctrine the people might still be encouraged in their state-heresie, to defie their allegiance; whilst he to make sure work was adding thereto a church-heresie, to defie their conscience: what a fair pretence was here? what a foul intention? first he findes fault with their grievances, v. 4. [thy father made our yoke grievous] then becomes their head in the Rebellion, v. 20. [is made king over all Israel:] and at last changes their Religion, and makes two calves, v. 28. was this a delivering of their bodies to damn their souls? a saving their estates to lose their consciences? but yet no good is to be done, till the Priests be in too; and be­cause the old ones will not consent, new ones must be made that will: never yet was there a sedition in the State, without a schism in the Church; the people first for­saking their obedience, then not enduring them whose duty it is to reprove their diso­bedience: thus there was a general Impu­dence, Unthankfulness, Impenitency, both in the people and in the Priests of Israel, be­fore their final destruction, which makes [Page 284] the Prophet say, and what will you do in the end thereof? Jer. 5. 31. that is, what will you do in the end that you will make, or in the end of the sin? and what will you do in the end that I shall make, or in the end of the sinner? the end that you will make, will be to pass from contention to sedition, from sedition to rebellion, from rebellion to impenitency and hardness of heart, to think you do God service in advising with the devils instruments, for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, 1 Sam. 15. 23. and witchcraft cannot but advise with the devil either in himself or in his adherents: the end that I shall make of it, will be your temporal de­struction here, your eternal demnation here­after, and both according to the rule of that justice, which though you may dally, I may not dispence with; for you have been faul­ty in your temporal obedience towards your superiou [...]s, in throwing away your allegi­ance, and so are guilty of temporal destru­ction, having cast off those whom I appoint­ed to govern and to protect you; and you have been faulty in your eternal obedience toward me, in throwing away my command­ments, & so are guilty of eternal damnation, having cast out that conscience which I pla­ced [Page 285] in your beasts to check and to admonish you, that you might repent and be saved.

And now we see a full and satisfactory reason, why God so destroyed his own cho­sen people the Jews, as he never destroyed any other nation; for he destroyed Aegypt but for one generation, but Israel he hath destroyed for many generations: Gath and Askelon were so laid waste as not to have one house left standing by another, but onely Jerusalem was so laid waste as not to have one stone left lying upon another: the reason is given by the Spirit of God, Psal. 73. 26. Lo, they that for sake thee shall perish, thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee, Ecce qui elongant se à te peribunt, behold, they that put themselves far from thee, shall perish; he saith not, behold, they that sin against thee shall perish, for then all the world should be destroyed; but behold they that go far from thee; he that goeth far from God is a sinner; but it follows not, he that is a sinner goes far from God; that belongs onely to such a sinner as delights in his di­stance from God, regards not the offers of reconciliation, and is resolved not to come near him; which is the perverse resolution of shameless apostates, men that were once [Page 286] so near God as to be of his communion, but were soon weary of his company, and there­fore now so depart and separate from him, as to rejoyce in their separation: and this appears from the ensuing words, Perdes om­nes qui scortantur à te, thou wilt destroy all them that go a whoring from thee; which is a sin that none can commit, but onely a wife, which first separates from her hus­band in her affection, then in her conversa­tion, and at last cleaves to another man: so was it with the Church of the Jews, the Spouse of God, she did first forsake internal communion with God by Faith and Love, then external communion by holiness and obedience, till at last she revolted to other gods; and accordingly she is thus reproved by the Prophets, for playing the harlot with many lovers, for polluting the land with her whoredomes, and committing adultery with stones and with stocks, (Jer. 3. 1, 2, 9.) this brought desolation upon that Church, a de­solation as remarkable as had been the apo­stasie; there's an Ecce belongs to both; Behold they forsake, and behold they perish: Lo they that forsake thee shall perish: none can properly forsake God, but he that once had some interest in him, and possession of [Page 287] him; this the heathen never had, but one­ly Israel, wherefore justice requires that they should perish with a greater confusion then the heathen, because for a greater sin, that is to say, for a greater contempt, for a more abominable unthankfulness, and for a more unpardonable impenitency: and as for those that repented and yet were destroyed, they cannot but say, their sins were greater then their sufferings; and being destroyed onely temporally when they might justly have been destroyed eternally, they cannot but say, Gods mercy was greater then their sins.

Thus we have weakly vindicated Gods Justice, both in general and in particular; and if we have insisted too long upon that vindication, yet sure it is onely too long as to the theme, but not too long as to our times, wherein we have seen those severe proceedings of Gods Justice, as would al­most make us cast off the hopes of Mercy, but that there is sometimes the greatest mercy in that justice which destroys tempo­rally, that it may spare eternally; and there­fore we do, must, and will beleeve, that God doth punish us here, that he may spare us hereafter, beseeching him al­so [Page 288] to spare those whom yet he doth not punish.

And this same justice as it is in God him­self, so is it also in his service, the true Re­ligion; and that so essentially, that 'tis im­possible for an unjust man to be truly reli­gious; for he that will not give man his due, will not give God his due; nay, in­deed he cannot give God his due, whose commandment he breaks, and whose autho­rity he despises in not giving it to man: It is the Apostles argument, (1 S. Iohn 4. 20.) If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a lyar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? for indeed true charity is so kinde, as not to seek her own, 1 Cor. 13. 5. and therefore cannot be so cruel, as to take away anothers due; nei­ther from the inferiour by oppression, nor from the equal by pride and contempt, nor from the superiour by disobedience.

Therefore let Religion towards God be taken for the ground and foundation of all justice towards men, for it is evident, that he who most loves God for his own sake, most loves man for Gods sake; and it is the property of love not to do, but to suffer [Page 289] wrong, and where is no doing of wrong, there can be no injustice; so that though that famous axiome be most true, justitia primùm, deinde charitas, justice first and then charity; yet is the truth thereof to be understood concerning the priority of na­ture, and of obligation; that a man is bound to be just before he can be charitable (for he may not rob Peter to pay Paul, he may not pillage a Church to build an Ho­spital) not concerning the priority of time or of generation, for so it is clear there can be no execution of justice but with and from charity, and all charity comes from God, and tends to him, love being the affection that relates to good, and all good relating to God the chiefest good.

But I must keep my self to the same me­thod concerning the Iustice of Religion, which I followed in discoursing of Gods Iu­stice, and therefore say, that Religion is just by universal and by particular Justice.

First, Religion is just by universal justice, in willing and doing generally what is just, according to that excellent rule, Fiat justitia & pereat mundus, let justice be done, though the whole world be undone; nor can that man be truly religious who is afraid that ju­stice [Page 290] should take place, lest the law should have its due, the Church should have her due, and the several orders of men should have their due; for to fear this, is in effect to fear lest God should have his due, for none of these can have any due, but what God hath given them; and he that fears lest God should have his due, in what he hath given unto others, cannot but fear lest God should have his due in what he hath reserved to himself; and such a fear as this must needs expell all true Religion, which is nothing else but an obligation of giving God his due, either mediately in his authority, or immediately in himself.

Therefore no prayer can more truly pro­ceed from the affection of Religion, then that of our Church: Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help, that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorifie thy holy Name: he that heartily prayeth thus is sure not to be irre­ligious, for he cordially desires to glorifie Gods Name; and he that carefully doth this is sure not to be unjust, for his works ex­actly follow the rule of universal justice, as being just in the means no less then in the [Page 291] end; in the means, beginning and continuing with God; no less then in the end, determi­ning and ending with him; he that useth unjust means to compass a just end, though he may be thought to end in God, because of the justness of his end, yet cannot be thought to begin or continue in God, be­cause of the unjustness of his means; but Religion desires to be so compleatly just, that she cannot allow any unjustness either in the means or in the end; and this appears from those two special axiomes which are to be found in no other science, but onely in Divinity; not in state-policy, but onely in Religion; not in Machiavils, but onely in Christs School: 1^o nolle malum propter bonum, not to do evil that good may come: 2^o velle bonum benè, not to do good so as that evil may come: but as the thing must be good we do, so it may not be made evil by our manner of doing: these two, being the general, or rather the peculiar rules of Reli­gion, shew how much she disdains to be en­thralled under the captivity of injustice, how much she detests that base thraldome, and those men that would so enthral her: and by these two we may easily distinguish Religion both from faction and from super­stition: [Page 292] for faction is usually peccant against the first rule, vult malum propter bonum, it will not scruple to do evil that good may come, it will not boggle at a Schism or a sedition for a Reformation; Superstition is usually peccant against the second rule, vult bonum non bene, it will have that which is good (suppose invocation, adoration) ‘not after a good manner’, that is to say, not according to Gods institution, but accord­ing to mans invention.

Secondly, Religion is just by particular justice, retributing to every man accord­ing to his works; which practise of Ju­stice was eminent in the primitive Church, wherein every notorious offender was put to an open shame, some kept from the Sacra­ment, [...]. others from the Church it self, thrust out of doors, [...], and none at all fully received till condign satisfaction given to the whole Congregation, by a long and a strict course of publick humiliation; insomuch that from onely two Canons of the first Council of Nice (can. 11. & 12.) we may collect no less then four several Orders and ranks of Chri­stians, not distinguished from the doctrine, but onely from the discipline of the Chri­stian [Page 293] Religion; for they all professed the same faith, but they all enjoyed not the same priviledges; but one was an order of hearers, another of penitents, a third of such as were admitted to the prayers, a fourth of such as were not admitted to the oblation; and accordingly these four orders had their four several times defined by the Council, which are there called [...] a time of hearing their sins, before they were admitted to penance; a time of penance, before they were admitted to the prayers of the Church; a time of praying with the Church, before they were admitted to the oblation or to the communion; and a time of partaking in the oblation, and rejoycing in the com­munion of Christ and of his members: and all this after they had gotten to be admit­ted into the Church; for some who had been forward in their apostasie, but were still backward in their repentance, were not so much as suffered to enter into the Church, but were kept without doors, as those who had no right to be accounted in the lowest and meanest order of Christians.

This practise hath of late been neglect­ed (if not opposed) by some, because it [Page 294] hath been abused by others, and satisfacti­on is now a days rejected as a piece of pe­nance, in regard of the Church, because it hath been cried up as a piece of penance in regard of God; yet is this so necessary a practise of Religion, that our Church can­not but wish it might be restored again; and that wish, though it be for the execution of justice, yet is it from the affection of cha­rity (not the affectation of tyranny) for the Church desires it not for her own sake, but for their sakes who indeed want it, and are in danger of perishing eternally for the want of it; men that either have sinned notoriously, or at least are inclined so to sin, whilst they use their liberty for an occasion to the flesh, Gal. 5. 13. or for a cloak of malici­ousness, 1 Pet. 2. 16. and 'tis most evident that such men ought to be punished out of justice, but are punished clearly out of cha­rity, for they are therefore put to open pe­nance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord, and that others admonished by their example might be the more afraid to offend.

But the less the Church can now exact this penance of us, the more ought we to exact it of our selves, and the rather be­cause [Page 295] every notorious offender wrongs three together, his God, his neighbour, and him­self; his God, by his disobedience; his neighbour, by his disturbance; himself by his distemper; so that it matters not which he most condemns in himself, whether his injustice or his irreligion, since the same two integral parts of justice, are also the two in­tegral parts of Religion, viz. to flee evil, and to do good: & as Religion challengeth all the soul, both in its intellective part, to embrace God as the first Truth; & in its affective part to cleave to God as the last good; so also doth justice challenge all the soul, it challen­geth the understanding, to know which is the right way; it challengeth the will to fol­low it: Justitia quoad legem regulantem est in ratione seu intellectu; sed quoad imperium, quo opera regulantur secundùm legem, est in voluntate, saith Aquinas: ‘Justice as it pro­pounds or prescribes the rule, is seated in the reason or in the understanding; but as it commands our obedience to the rule prescribed, so it is seated in the affe­ction or in the will;’ whence it comes to pass, that few are the number of the just, as also of the religious, because none can be either truly just or religious, but he alone [Page 296] whose whole soul is sanctified, but he alone who is rectified both in his reason and in his affection, both in his understanding and in his will: and it is no less then the work of a whole age, both for Gods grace and for mans industry, to rectifie either; and hence it is, that God is specially called the God of the just, ex speciali curâ & cultu, ‘from the special care he hath of them, (to protect them here, and to reward them hereafter;) and from the special worship or service he hath from them, none doing him service but the religious, and none being religious but the just.’ But whence then so much in­justice among Christians, even too much for the heathen that know not God to practise, and for the infidels that beleeve not God to pro­fess? I answer, merely from the want of Re­ligion; in which want they are too too of­ten the greatest sharers, who are, or might be the onely possessours; for Pagans can have but a negative want of godliness, such as they could not compass not having the true light of God to shew it but Christians have moreover a privative want of godliness, such as they might and should have compassed, had they not bid defiance to that light which shewed it: which makes the Spirit of God [Page 297] pronounce a severe sentence against them from the mouth of S. Peter, saying, It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, (or the way of justice, [...], that is, the way of Religion) then after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them: they are in a very bad condition who know not the way of righteousness; but they are in a far worse, who do know it but will not follow it; they are under a fearfull doom who never turned to the holy commandment; but their judgement will be intolerable who have wilfully turned from it: and it is to be fear­ed, that God will ere long take from some Christians their Religion, if he do not speedily give them more justice; for he will not long endure that men should specula­tively honour his Name, but practically blaspheme it: wherefore it is to be suppo­sed, that he will either make such Christi­ans as regard not justice, more just in their actions, or less religious in their protestati­ons; that he will make them either afraid to violate the commands of Christ, or ashamed to pretend to the profession of Christianity.

The next attribute we are now to consi­der in God is his Grace, whereby he freely [Page 298] gives what is wanting to his creature: for Grace is the participation of the divine na­ture, and therefore above the condition of every man that hath it, and much more a­bove his deserts, unless we will needs say, that men may deserve to partake of the di­vine nature, because they have corrupted and abused their own: and this grace as it is in God, is the actual communication of his goodness, whereby he diffuseth himself to the sons of men, as they are capable to re­ceive him, and never leaves to derive into them heavenly influencies, till he hath in­stated them in the eternal bliss of heaven; which goodness of God is more particularly revealed unto us in that covenant of Grace, which God freely and favourably made with us when we were his enemies, and therefore will certainly fulfill now we are his friends: Ero Deus tuus & seminis tui; I will be thy God, and thy seeds after thee: for which promise there was no reason but his own undeserved grace, though now his promise be a good rea­son of his performance; and yet still his grace will approve it self to be free grace, though we acknowledge that his promise hath made him a debter; and where there is a debt, there may seem to be matter of ju­stice, [Page 299] not of grace; for we may not limit this universal proposition, Promissum cadit in de­bitum, ‘A promise becomes a debt’, by distinguishing upon him that makes the pro­mise, and saying, 'Tis to be understood of the promises of men, but not of God, Pro­missio creaturarum, non Dei, as saith Paraeus) in Ursinum, pag. 158.) for in truth Gods promise is more truly and universally a debt, then the promise of any creature whatsoever; because his promise is always of that which is really good for us, and therefore undoubtedly claimable by us; whereas the creature may promise what is not really good, and consequently what we may not care to claim: as for example, [All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me,] was a large promise, but yet could not be made a debt, because it could not be made worth the claiming; whereas Gods promise to Abraham but one­ly of one small corner of those kingdoms, was taken for a good debt, and a sufficient title to the land of Canaan, which was from thence called The land of promise: where­fore we may say safely w^t great confidence, & with greater comfort, that Gods promise obligeth him not less, but rather more then [Page 300] our promises can oblige us: for we may promise in materia indebita, or modo in­debito, ‘in an unwarrantable matter, or af­ter an unwarrantable manner;’ so that ei­ther he that hath made the promise may be bound to recall his word, or he to whom it is made may be bound not to claim it; either of which is enough to disannul the justice of a debt: but we are sure God cannot promise any thing not really and compleatly good in the matter, and in the manner, and there­fore his promise must needs be laid hold on, as a debt worth claiming, and more worth the having, so that we cannot but look upon him, as obliged to a most substantial and real performance of all his promises.

And yet still here is nothing but mere Grace, not so much as merit of congruity: for though a promise becomes a debt in God, no less then in man; yet that debt is a debt onely of favour, not of justice; and God is obliged to pay it onely in faithfulness which he oweth to his own truth, not in justice which he oweth to our works or to our deservings. Wherefore let a promise of Grace go for a debt, but let it go for a debt of Grace, not for a debt of justice, that God may be bound onely to himself, and [Page 301] not to us: for as it was onely his own mere grace, that first made him give us bond, so it is onely the same grace that at last makes him keep it: a grace that ought rather to supply us with arguments for de­votion, then for disputation: for since it is evident, that being enemies we could never have reconciled our selves; it cannot be ob­scure, that now we are friends, we ow to him more then to our selves, both the en­joyment and the continuance of our recon­ciliation.

And this is the most comfortable do­ctrine that can be preached to those, who have rather wounded hearts then itching ears, that would rather hear sound then pleasing divinity; for such men must needs be desi­rous to have God more magnified then themselves, and are contented to expect their salvation from him, as well as with him: for seeing themselves unable to make satisfaction for the least of their sins, they dare not hazard their salvation upon the greatest of their righteousness; but are wil­ling to say with S. Paul, For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life, (Rom. 5. 10.) It was the [Page 302] death of his Son that wrought our reconcilia­tion, and it is the life of his Son that work­eth our salvation; by grace we are saved, and this grace is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, because purchased by him, derived from him, and continued through him; but yet this grace cannot so well be known by it self (for so it is like God the authour of it, altogether invisible,) as by its effects; and they are five according to Aquinas: Sunt autem quinque effectus gratiae in nobis, quorum primus est, ut anima sanetur; secundus, ut bo­num velit; tertius, ut bonum quod vult, essi­caciter operetur; quartus est, ut in bono perse­veret; quintus est, ut ad gloriam perveniat: (12ae. q. 111. art. 3.) ‘There are five effects of grace in us, the first is, that it heals the soul of its natural maladie or distemper, whereby it is prone onely to evil: the second, that it makes us will what is good: the third, that it makes us do the good which we have willed: the fourth, that it makes us persevere in doing that good: the fifth, that it brings us to glory, to enjoy God the fountain of goodness:’ so that in short, where we finde most goodness both in the will and in the deed, there we may be sure is most [Page 303] grace; and where least goodness, least grace; and where no goodness, no grace.

And this is also the truest touchstone of Religion, whereby we may discern gold from dross, which oftentimes glitters as much in the shew, but yet stil comes far short in the value; the glory may be alike in both, but the goodness is far different: That Re­ligion which makes the best men, will upon this account be found the best Religion; and that made S. Augustine so zealous to de­scribe the manners of the true Church, as himself professeth, lib. 1. Retract. cap. 7. Jam baptizatus cùm Romae essem & Manichaei jactarent de falsa & fallaci continentia vel ab­stinentia, quâ se ad imperitos decipiendos veris Christianis praeferunt, scripsi duos libros, unum de moribus verae Ecclesiae, alterum de moribus Manichaeorum: ‘When the Manichees did brag of their false and fallacious conti­nence or abstinence, and upon that pre­tence did much deceive the ignorant peo­ple, as if they forsooth had been the one­ly true Christians, I thought it high time to write two books, one of the manners of the true Church, the other of the manners of the Manicheans:’ his drift was from the good manners to finde out the good Reli­gion, [Page 304] whether it were in the Manichees or in the Church: and he tells us that the Mani­chees did extoll themselves among the ignorant multitude chiefly by these two d [...] ­vices, by crying down the Scriptures, and by crying up themselves, and their own great continencie.

Their first device was to cry down the Scri­ptures, as if they had found a more perfect way of Religion then the word of God had taught them; and concerning this, the Fa­ther gives his definitive sentence, (lib. de mo­ribus Eccl. Cathol. cap. 9.) Convictorum ho­minum ultima vox, ‘That this is the last plea of men that are convinced, but will not be converted.’ And again he saith the same in effect by way of interrogation, which before he had said by way of defini­tion, Nescitis quantâ imperitiâ lacessitis li­bros quos & soli reprehendunt qui non intelli­gunt, & soli intelligere nequeunt qui repre­hendunt? ‘Are you indeed so ignorant as not to see what a madness it is to revile those books, which onely they reprehend who do not understand; and onely they cannot understand, who will needs repre­hend them?’ (August. lib. de moribus Eccl. cath. cap. 25.)

[Page 305] Their second device was to cry up them­selves, and particularly their own continen­cy, that though their auditores, their com­mon sort had wives, yet their electi, their choice ones had none; and concerning this the same Father answers thus; lib. de mor. Manichaeorum, cap. 19. Vidi ipse plures quam tres Electos, simul post transeuntes nescio quas foeminas, tam petulanti gestu adhinnire, ut omnium trivialium impudicitiam impuden­tiamque superarent; ‘that even their elect ones did pretend to much more continen­cy, then they did observe;’ but concern­ing this, the world would more willingly leave men to the judgement of their own consciences; how to serve God with the most purity and with the least distraction, if they did but answer to themselves this Question, whether it is better, that they which have wives be as though they had none, 1 Cor. 7. 29. or that they which have no wives be as though they had them? for what is best, is doubtless in this as in other cases the determination of Religion: for that la­bours to make men like God both in their bodies and in their souls; in their bodies by sobriety, temperance, and chastity, either vir­ginal, or vidual, or conjugal; in their souls [Page 306] by holy meditations and more holy affecti­ons; and where men do most truly express this holiness in their lives and conversati­ons, 'tis not to be doubted, but there is the best and the purest Religion, although it is often seen, that where is the best and the purest Religion, there men do not alwaies express the same in their lives and conver­sations; which made the same S. Augustine declare this as a dogmatical sanction, ex ma­lorum Christianorum moribus non vituperan­dam esse Ecclesiam. (Aug. lib. de mor. Eccl. Cath. cap. 34.) that the Church is not to be blamed for the misdemeanours of some men that live in her communion, since she her self condemns those misdemeanours, and labours to correct them.

The upshot of all may be this, that not the practical but the doctrinal, miscarriages of men are to be imputed to the Church, and where are fewest of such miscarriages there is most of truth and goodness, where is most of these, there is most of the pure Religion: for as manners make the man, so Religion makes the manners; and it is little other then the doctrine of devils, that saith, hell is full of moral honest men, though it pretend to set up faith: for [Page 307] S. Paul plainly shews, that faith alone was the cause of all moral honesty in the Jews, Heb. 11. so that 'tis too much for any man to doubt, much more to deny, but that faith alone is the cause of all true moral honesty in the Christians; whence our blessed Sa­viour preacheth onely moral duties, S. Luk, 21. 31. take heed lest your hearts be overchar­ged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, &c. he bids them be temperate, sober, and content, watch and pray; and what is all this but moral honesty? yet if this right­ly done (and 'tis rightly done onely in true beleevers) proceed not from faith, we must infer, that we may stand in judgement with­out faith, for so it follows, v. 36. that ye may stand before the Son of man; nor would Christ have thus taught daily in the temple, v. 37. had this not been the right way of preaching true faith in Christ; and what he prescribes in his doctrine, he performs in his practise, for his nights were spent in pray­ing, as his days in preaching: and therefore to say that hell is full of moral honest men, is to say, that hell is full of true beleevers, and consequently to blaspheme that precious faith in Christ, which could not sanctifie the hand in working, did it not first sancti­fie [Page 308] the heart in beleeving; and we cannot but say, that Noahs preparing the Ark, and Abrahams offering his son, was materially an act of obedience, (that moral honest ver­tue which this world cares not to profess, much less to practise) though it was for­mally an act of faith; and so we may say concerning those other examples there cited by S Paul; wherein some vertue that be­longs to the catalogue of moral honesty, will come in for the material part, though faith alone may happily challenge the formal part of the performance; and Aquina's distin­ction of actus virtutis imperatus & c [...] ­tus, will reconcile the difference; for all vertuous acts truly so called are the acts of faith imperativè, as commanded by it, (whence S. Augustine stiled the best works of unbeleevers but gilded or glittering sins) though onely the peculiar acts of beleeving and confessing be the acts of faith elicitive, as immediately and directly flowing from it: for faith is in the soul, as the soul is in the body; and as all motion in the body is by redundancy from the soul, so all good motion in the soul is by redundancy from faith; and hence it is there is so great an influence of our words upon our manners, [Page 309] and of our manners upon our doctrine, and consequently upon our faith; for as evil words corrupt good manners, so also evil man­ners corrupt good words; it having been the fate of Religion, first to decay in mens lives, then in their doctrines; first in their works, then in their faith; so that irreligi­on first gets into our conversations, then into our catechismes; and the miscarriages of Churches have first been practical, and after that dogmatical, men being generally more zealous for their credit in labouring to justifie their errours, then for their in­nocency in confessing that they have erred.

The third and last Attribute we are now to consider in God is his Mercy, whereby he freely forgives what is due unto himself: For as the act of grace is most clearly evidenced in freely giving what was not due unto the creature, so is the act of mercy most conspi­cuous in freely forgiving what is due from it: Aquinas makes Gods Mercy the foun­dation of all his works of distributive justice even in rewarding the righteous; then much more is it the foundation of his not work­ing according to his vindicative justice in the punishment of our unrighteousness:

'Tis a heavenly contemplation of his, [Page 310] (and such heavenly contemplations are very frequent in the angelical doctour) opus divinae justitiae semper praesupponit, opus mi­sericordiae, & in eo fundatur, (1 Par. qu. 21. ar. 4.) ‘the work of Gods Justice alwaies presupposeth the work of his Mercy, and is founded in it:’ for the creature can have nothing due to it, but for some thing that is in it, and the creature hath nothing in it which did not flow immediately from the goodness of the Creatour; therefore that goodness alone must be looked upon as the ground and foundation of all that the crea­ture is capable of, which alone put the same into a capacity of any thing at all: Et sic in quolibet opere Dei apparet misericordia quan­tum ad primam radicem ejus, cujus virtus salvator in omnibus consequentibus, & etiam vehementius in eis operatur, sicut causa prima­ria vehementius influit, quam causa secunda: words that deserve to be engraven with let­ters of gold, and much more to be engra­ven in our hearts, and this is the mean­ing of them: ‘there is no work of God but mercy is the ground and root of it; and this ground is preserved in all the building, this root, is seen in all the fruits that grow from it, nay, it hath a [Page 311] great efficacy of working above them all, even as the first cause hath a stronger influence then the second and all that come after it.’ Will you then ask me why God rewards the best of men, the righ­teous, far above their deserts? 'tis because his mercy first made them men to be capa­ble of righteousness, and made them righ­teous to be capable of reward; and that being the first cause must needs have the strongest influence: Will you ask me again, why God doth not reward the worst of men, impenitent sinners, according to their ill deservings? I must answer again, 'tis the same mercy, because that was the first cause of the creation, and therefore cannot but have the strongest influence upon the crea­ture; and consequently though his justice do as it were force him to punish (for his law must be satisfied either by our active or by our passive obedience) yet his mercy will not let him punish to the utmost, and hence comes in the citra condignum in the Schools, that even the damned in hell shall be punished, much less then they have de­served: If you ask me in the third place, why God forgives so much sin in the best of sinners, the true penitents; that he may [Page 310] [...] [Page 311] [...] [Page 312] discharge them from all punishment? you must still be contented with the same an­swer; for 'tis nothing but mercy which ha­ving been the first cause of his working, will have the greatest preeminence, and the strongest influence amongst all his works, nay, over them all, as saith the Psalmist, his mercy is over all his works, Ps. 145. 9. Deusnon miseretur nisi propter amorem, in quantum a­mat nos tanquam aliquid sui, saith the same angelical Doctour, Gods mercy is from his love, and his love is from himself, he sheweth us mercy because he loveth us, and he loveth us because he seeth something of himself in us, nothing else being truly good and lovely in us, but what the fountain of goodness and love hath made so: and hence it comes to pass, that where is the most of God, there is also the most of mercy; where is most of his image, either by the first righ­teousness that of innocency, or by the se­cond righteousness, that of repentance, there also is most of his love; there is some of his love towards the worst men because there is some of his image in them, which they had by their creation; but there is ve­ry much of his love towards the best men, because there is very much of his image in [Page 313] them, which they have from their sanctifi­cation: We are all dull of our apprehensi­ons, and cannot easily discern Gods mercies by a right valuation, but more dull of our affections, and will not easily profess and ac­knowledge them by our thankfulness: but the Apostle, whose eyes were opened to discover, whose heart was opened to per­ceive, whose mouth was opened to express the goodness of God towards men, breaketh forth into this great exclamation, but great­er admiration for us all, O altitudo divitia­rum, O the depth of the riches, who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompenced a­gain? Rom. 11. 33, 35. here in the words is mentioned [...]; but in the thing is made good [...], a sigure notorious in Rhetorick for want of words, and so called because the latter clause of the sentence doth not contribute or give its part to make up the full sense, as Exo. 32. 31. If thou wilt forgive their sin; & S. Luk. 13. 9. & if it bear fruit; where nothing more is said to make up a perfect sense, but the rest is left to be understood from the silence of the speaker; this figure is notorious in Rhetorick the very art of speaking, meerly for want of speech; but 'tis much more notorious in Divinity, the art [Page 314] of doing, meerly for want of deeds; for if when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants, what shall we say of our selves that we can do nothing? this is indeed a true [...], for here is nothing to be given back a­gain, God hath given us all, but we can give him nothing; and that he might be sure to leave nothing ungiven, he hath given us him who is all in all; he hath given us him­self in our creation, he hath given us his Son in our redemption, he hath given us his holy Spirit in our sanctification; but who (either first or last) hath given unto God, and it shall be recompenced unto him again? If we give any thing to him, 'tis but what we first received from him, and we cannot give that so entirely as we received it; it came better to us then it can return from us; so that we must needs confess, all that is given, is given onely on one side, without any the least recompence on the other; and consequently none of Gods gifts to man can properly come under the consideration, much less under the claim of justice, but all of them flow from the inexhausted fountain of his free and undeserved mercy: by this mercy alone it is, that he willeth our salvation, and hath given us his oath that he wills it, As I [Page 315] live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live, Ezek. 33. 11. which made the ancient Father fall into a rapture, and break forth into this exclamation, O nos soelices, quorum causa jurat Deus! O miserri­mos si ne juranti quidem Deo credimus: ‘O happy we for whose sakes God hath been pleased to swear. O most unhappy, if we do not beleeve him upon his oath!’ by this mercy alone it is that he inviteth us to repentance, the onely means of salvation; that in his invitation he condescendeth to our infirmities, and beareth with our de­lays; by this mercy alone it is that upon our repentance, he actually delivereth us from the bondage of sin and Satan, work­ing that deliverance by his Son, and sealing it by his holy Spirit; and that altogether freely, that is to say, so far without our good deservings, as above them, so far with our ill deservings, as against them; so saith the Apostle, Rom. 3. 24. Being justified free­ly by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: what did we do for Christ that he hath redeemed us? what can we do for God, that he should justifie us? It is reasonable, that we first shew what we have [Page 316] done towards our redemption, before we presume to boast what we can do towards our justification: Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free Spi­rit, saith the Psalmist, thereby shewing, that the salvation he beseecheth God to restore unto him, is as free, as the Spirit whereby he restores it; Eodem modó retinetur quo ac­quiritur; no more merit is to be pleaded for our retaining of Gods Spirit, then was for our first receiving him; the Spirit was free, when he first laid hold on us, and is as free now he still upholds us; I will heal their backslidings, saith that Spirit, I will love them freely, Hos. 14. 4. he heals us freely, he loves us freely; we were backsliders when he did heal us, we are backsliders now he doth love us: what the sick man doth towards his cure, who provokes his physician by backsliding and wilfully relapsing into his disease; that we have done to God, why he should heal us, why he should love us: and how then shall we not alwaies think of this free and undeserved mercy, which is the surest salvation of our souls, and therefore the best imployment of our thoughts? and how shall we but once think of it, and not finde words answerable to our thoughts, [Page 317] not be ready to sing our Hosanna to the Son of David? we have an excellent president from two sorts which were in the lowest de­gree of speakers, the multitudes and the children, S. Mat. 21. the one cannot speak orderly, the other cannot speak plainly, yet both join together in this heavenly consort, and sing their Hosannas to our blessed Savi­our, both orderly and plainly; nay, we may finde a president by way of suppositi­on, though not by way of position, from a sort that are in the very highest degree of not speakers, for so saith Truth himself, Verily I say unto you, if those should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out; S. Luk. 19. 40. as if he had said, if these two that are in the lowest degree of speakers (the multitudes and the children) should hold their peace, and not magnifie that mercy which they cannot deserve (which is there­fore the more to be magnified, because it it hath been the less deserved) then would the very stones cry out which are in the highest degree of not speakers; as not ha­ving any organs that conduce to so much as the making of a noise (and therefore sure not to the uttering of a voice) and yet even these should not onely speak but also cry [Page 318] out, speak very loud, if we should be so un­thankfull as to hold our peace; for God who can out of these stones raise up children unto Abraham, S. Matth. 3. 9. can also out of these stones raise up Saints unto himself, to sing hosannas to his Son; nay, indeed he hath raised up both children to Abraham, and saints unto himself, as it were out of these stones, in mollifying the hard hearts of men, to make them capable of the impressions of his grace; and in opening their lips, that he might fill their mouths with the expres­sions of his praise and glory: a mercy that in this respect is greater then all the rest, because without this we could not be thank­full for them, and unthankfullness is able to make the greatest mercies no mercies at all.

So that now we may clearly see how to answer that curious and fond Question, What did God do before the Creation? not by saying that he was making hell for such Que­stionists; but, that he was wholly imployed in making heaven; for doubtless, God the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost delighted in himself from all eternity, and consequent­ly was making heaven for himself; for he is indeed his own heaven, his own blessed­ness, rejoycing everlastingly in himself: [Page 319] but we may yet go further, and say, that he was making heaven also for us men; for that same goodness which made him re­joyce in himself, as being his own blessed­ness, made him also rejoyce in his work­manship, as that which should proceed from himself, and as that which should be bles­sed in himself: and that same goodness made him in time give us a being, and such a being, as was capable of blessedness, as was capable of the joy of heaven, by re­joycing in the God of heaven: for as God is his own heaven by rejoycing in himself, so is he also our heaven, by making us re­joyce in him; O the happiness of a judi­cious soul, that contemplates this mercy, but much more of a religious soul, that embra­ces it, for doubtless such a soul begins to go to heaven, by delighting it self betimes in God; according to that heavenly advice given by the Psalmist, Delight thy self in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart; what else is the work of hea­ven, but to delight thy self in the Lord? what else is the reward of heaven, but to have the desires of thy heart? If thou do the work, thou wilt not miss of the reward; but though thou have not all that thou canst i­magine, [Page 320] which is the desire of the brain, yet thou wilt have all that thou canst enjoy▪ which is the desire of the heart; thou maist want the corporal rest of thy body, but thou shalt not want the spiritual rest and repose of thy soul: thou maist be much oppressed by mans cruelty, but thou wilt much more be refreshed by Gods mercy, which always brings a great refreshment in its contempla­tion, to shew it cannot be without an uni­maginable joy in its fruition: we may think those men merriest that sing loudest; but the Apostle tells us of another singing, which thought it hath much less noise, yet can it not but have much more chearful­ness, Eph. 5. 19. Speaking to your selves in Psalms and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, singing and making melody in your heart unto the Lord: a true and lively faith in Gods mercy (which is most usefull in all times, but most needfull in the worst times) will neither let us want company, for it will make us speak to our selves, nor want a speech, for it will teach us to speak in Psalms and Hymns, nor will it let us want mirth, for it will cause us to sing and make melody in our hearts; Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiri­tual Songs, speaking, and singing, and ma­king [Page 321] melody, all is too little to welcome the very thought of mercy, and what then can be enough to express the joy and the en­joyment of it? but if we look upon the verse before, we may there discern a double fulness, a fulness of wine, and a fulness of the Spirit; he that is filled with wine (the joys of this world) may sing lowdest, but he that is filled with the Spirit (the joys of the world above) surely sings sweetest; for come what can come, this man must either not be miserable, or, which is the greater happiness, not be discontented with his mi­sery: for (as it follows in the verse next after) he is giving thanks always for all things to God; and therefore he is giving thanks also for those things which seem to bring him the greatest discomforts and di­sturbances, because his disturbances cannot be so fixed upon his body, as his soul is fix­ed upon his God: and looking with an eye of faith upon the eternal mercy, he cannot but look with an eye of scorn upon a little momentany and temporal misery: thus we finde S. Paul and Silas singing Psalms to God in the prison, after all their stripes; having been scourged in the day, yet sing­ing in the night; these two discords, scour­ging [Page 322] and singing make up an admirable har­mony; when their bodies were most tor­mented and straitned, their souls were most comforted and enlarged; and the prison doors being opened, and the prisoners bands loosed by the singing of a Psalm, shew the great power of the key of David, that the readiest way to get out of prison is to make use chiefly of that key, which will turn thral­dome it self into liberty, and therefore can­not but turn liberty into a blessing: for sure­ly such men who can make heaven where it is not, can much more enjoy heaven where it is; they who can finde liberty in their captivity, cannot but finde a great blessing in their liberty, which they esteem to consist not so much in their free egresses and regresses unto men, as in their frequent approaches and addresses unto God; where­fore let my soul be evermore busied in con­templating Gods eternal mercy, and my heart in loving it, and my mouth in praising it; that when I am driven to such exigencies as least to enjoy my self, I may then finde such opportunities as most to enjoy my God: Let me alwaies be saying with Israel, I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies, Gen. 32. 10. I am not worthy of the least [Page 323] of thy temporal mercies, and much less of that eternal mercy which caused them; I am not worthy of the least of thy mercies, whether shewed me as a natural man, or as an Israelite, and a Christian, or as a true Is­raelite and a good Christian; whether mer­cies that concern the state of nature, or the state of grace, or the state of glory: I am not worthy of the least of them all, and what then shall I offer thee for the greatest? I will offer mine heart for an holocaust, I will offer the calves of my lips, for a sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving; that though I cannot deny in my self the greatest unwor­thiness, yet I may never discover the least unthankfulness: for though my being un­worthy did not keep me from receiving Gods mercies, yet my being unthankfull will keep me from retaining them; it being alike against the very nature of mercy to look for recompence, and not to look for acknow­ledgments: nor can there be a truer acknow­ledgement of Gods undeserved goodness towards us, then by ascribing all that we have, are, and hope for to his mercy; this one thing alone is to us as God, even all in all: 'twas creation when we were not, 'tis preservation now we are, 'tis glorification [Page 324] in what we hope to be: Mercy is illuminati­on to those in darkness, Confirmation to those in weakness, Comfort to those in sad­ness, Health to those in sickness, Liberty to those in prison, Clothing to those in na­kedness, Joy to those in life, and Life to those in death; he that can truly and hear­tily ask for mercy cannot want a prayer to shew his necessities, and shall not want a remedy to redress them; for he hath both the Spirit and the gift of Prayer, the Spirit of prayer in the zeal and sincerity of his affection, the gift of prayer in the congru­ity and fitness of his expression: Jesus thou Son of David, have mercy on me, S. Luk. 18. 38. was enough to open the blinde mans eyes to see his Saviour, his heart to beleeve in him, his mouth to glorifie him; we may from those few words observe the Spirit of Prayer in the earnestness of the supplicant, and the gift of prayer in the fitness of his sup­plication: so that neither did he stint the Spirit by confining himself to a set form of words, for he cryed, saith the Text, shew­ing the earnestness of his affection; nor did he quench the Spirit by confining himself to the very same words till he had obtained his answer, for he cryed so much the more, [Page 325] saith the Text, approving the fitness of his expression, thereby intimating, that they might justly have been ashamed who rebu­ked him for praying, not he, who maugre all their rebukes and taunts would not be dri­ven from his premeditated and set form of prayer: I will also use the same prayer in all my wants & distresses, & will not doubt but as this form is already to me the opening of my mouth, or rather of my heart to pray, so it shall be also the opening of heaven to let in my prayers, that they may have imme­diate access to him whose mercy is himself, & who therfore delights in mercy as in himself.

Thus have I briefly spoken of mercy as it is in God, and now come as briefly to shew how mercy is also in the true Religion the service of God; for in this above all is the true Religion to be discerned & distinguish­ed from faction (for all false faith is faction, whether it be addicted to blindness or to per­versness, to superstition, or to separation) the true Religion is alwaies most inclinable to mercy, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel, Prov. 12. 10. where the word [...] that is translated the wicked hath its deriva­tion from commotion or agitation, and doth most properly signifie those wicked who are [Page 326] turbulent, seditions, and factious: even their tenderness is hard-heartedness, even their mercy is cruelty; whereas a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, rather then not shew mercy, he will shew it to his beast, though in some respects uncapable of mercy, in o­thers unworthy of it; thus then it is, the righteous is mercifull to his beast, the unrigh­teous is not mercifull to his brother, so near a conjunction is there betwixt righteousness and mercy; faction may often pretend to piety but never to mercy; but the true Re­ligion admits of no piety without mercy: wherein it follows both the pattern and the precept of its Founder, who hath left his minde concerning this matter no less then thrice upon publick record, once in the old, twice in the new Testament: in the old, Hos. 6. 6. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and as he desires so he accepts, for to what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices, (saith the Prophet Isaiah at the very same time) while your hands are full of bloud? Is. 1. 11, 15. In the New Testament, S. Mat, 9. 13. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice: and a­gain, S. Mat. 12. 7. But if ye had known wha [...] this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacri­fice, [Page 327] ye would not have condemned the guiltless, where our Saviour Christ requires of all that will be his disciples (that is, good Christians.)

In the first place to look after mercy, 1. in its nature, and then in its exercise.

1. In its nature, here is mercy with sacri­fice, by way of conjunction; mercy in sacri­fice, by way of command; and mercy above sacrifice, by way of comparison: I will have mercy and not sacrifice, affords all these three Expositions.

2 In its exercise; for we are bid, Go and learn what this meaneth: Our Saviour sends us all to his School, and he sends none one­ly to look on like idle spectatours, or to gos­sip and tattle like idle auditours, but he sends all to learn the lessons that he there teach­eth them: and not so much to learn the words of those lessons as their meaning, Go ye and learn what that meaneth, that is, go learn it intellectually to understand it; cordi­ally to love it, practically to perform it; that mercy is the chiefest ingredient of your Religion, and ought to be the first of your sacrifices: for he that will have mercy rather then sacrifice, surely will accept of no sacri­fice without mercy: and this appears from the very occasion of citing the Text, for it is [Page 328] cited, S. Mat. 9. 13. to confute those that out of a mistaken zeal would needs be factious and turn Separatists, accounting themselves too good to keep company with sinners: It is cited S. Mat. 12. 7. to confute those that would needs be superstitious, making an i­dol of the Sabbath, and condemning the disciples for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath-day, when they were an hun­gred; and much more is it still to be cited against them amongst us, who in the same practises are both factious and superstitious; men that most talk of Religion, yet least care for mercy; for we see that we have now a Religion without sacrifice, but we can never have a Religion without mercy; Sow to your selves in Righteousness and reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground, for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain righteous­ness upon you, Hos. 10. 12. there cannot be righteousness without mercy, for both these make but one exhortation of seeking the Lord, whom we must seek no less by mercy then by righteousness, or we shall so seek him as not to finde him: for even at his own altar will he not be found of us, if we come thither to seek him without mercy, before we are reconciled to our brother; and there­fore [Page 329] in this case we are plainly told it is in vain to offer our gifts, which is in effect to say, that God will not be there for to re­ceive them, S. Mat. 5. 23, 24. nay, even in heaven, which is his throne, will he not be found by us, unless we come with mercy to seek him there; and therefore the benedi­ction of purity, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God, presupposeth the bene­diction of mercy, Blessed are the mercifull, for they shall obtain mercy: for were it possible for a soul to be in heaven, and there to see God, which had not obtained mercy, which had not its sins forgiven, that soul could not be truly blessed: First, because it could not love God, looking upon him as not re­conciled in Christ, and therefore not as a loving Father, but as an impartial Judge: for if to whom little is forgiven the same lo­veth little, S. Luk. 7. 47. then by the same rule of proportion, where is no forgiveness, there can be no love, supposing that there is sin which needs to be forgiven. Secondly, because that soul could not love it self, as being odious and abominable whilest under the guilt of sin: for even the damned souls in hell, though they do not contract the guilt of new sins (for then unrighteousness would [Page 330] be immortai) yet forasmuch as they are still under the guilt of their old sins (which could not be washed away but onely by that bloud which they trampled under their feet, and by that repentance which they would not let come near their hearts, and being not washed away still remains upon their souls) cannot but be eternally odious and abomi­nable to themselves, because they cannot but be eternally under the guilt of sin: so that we may infer with good Logick and better Divinity: that if the reward of the pure in heart (which is to see God) without the reward of the mercifull (which is to ob­tain mercy) be no blessedness, then surely purity without mercy is no righteousness, for it is not possible that true righteousness should be without a reward.

And indeed it is not possible that true righteousness should be without mercy, whence it is that the Seventy Interpre­ters do render the Hebrew word [...] which is mercies, by the Greek word [...] which is holinesses, as appears Isa. 55. 3. cited by S. Paul, Act. 13. 34. the prophet had said, I will give you the mercies, but the Septua­gint, and from them S. Paul did say, I will give you the holy or just things; they both did [Page 331] mean the same gift, though the one called it mercy, the other called it holiness: and indeed in the Hebrew the same is the good and the mercifull men, [...]: and S. Paul tels us, that peradventure for such a good man some would even dare to dye, Rom. 5. 7. scarce­ly for a righteous man will one die, yet perad­venture for a good man some would even dare to die: by the righteous man he means [...], the man rigorously just, that would do no wrong; but by the good man he means [...], the man piously merci­full, that would do all manner of good: and this man he accounts so obliging, that peradventure some would not stick to lose their own lives so they might save his; and by thus comparing the righteous man and the good man, he shews that our Saviours love to us was beyond compare, who was plea­sed to die for us when we were yet sinners, that is, so far from being good men, that we were not so much as righteous men, so far from having the positive righteousness of doing good, that we had not so much as the priva­tive righteousness of not doing evil.

Thus doth the Apostle prefer him that is righteous, according to the rules of mercy, before him that is righteous according to the [Page 332] rules of Justice, from the example of God himself, who delighted in the righteousness of mercy above the righteousness of justice; and therefore was not so zealous to com­mend his love of justice in destroying us, as his love of mercy in saving us: go and do thou likewise, is the use that the best Preach­er that ever was either in heaven or in earth makes of this doctrine, S. Luk. 10. 37. when the answer had been made that he was the neighbour to the wounded man, who had shewed him mercy, it follows presently, then said Jesus, go and do thou likewise: and they that do willingly hear this Preacher, do as rea­dily obey him, having a desire that mercy may rejoyce against judgement in them here, because they have a hope that mercy shall re­joyce against judgement for them hereafter; and this is the reason of the Apostles infe­rence, Eph. 4. 32. Be ye kinde one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you: this priviledge and prerogative we men have above the angels, that God hath for­given us very much, when as he hath for­given them nothing; they share equally with us in all Gods other attributes, but in this attribute of mercy we that have been [Page 333] the sinners are the greatest sharers: and therefore I dare not say it is an errour of charity to assert, that the Blessed Virgin had no sin to be forgiven her; I may say it is an errour, for it is against the Text, Death passed upon all for that all had sinned, Rom. 5. 12. nay, I may say it is in some sort an uncharitable errour against the charity that is due to the blessed Virgin, for though this doctrine may seem to adde to her honour, yet it must needs detract and diminish from her joy, since her self hath proclaimed these words, My soul doth magnifie the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoyced in God my Saviour, and we know what his salvation was whom she calls her Saviour, even that which gave him his name Jesus, S. Mat. 1. 21. which was to save his people from their sins: so that if she had no sin, how could she have this Jesus for her Saviour? and I dare not say, that she had him not for her Saviour, when I see her so rejoycing in his salvation, wherefore the errour must be contented to go without the charity, for there is no cha­rity in denying the mother of God, the greatest interest in God, the interest in his mercy; no charity in denying the mother of our Saviour, the best interest in her own [Page 334] Son, the interest in his salvation: I dare not then exclude the blessed Virgin out of that number of which S. Paul hath spoken these words, Even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you, and can but wonder that some who have phansied her more tender-hearted then Christ himself, should ascribe so much tender-heartedness to so little need of forgiveness: for it is not unknown to travellers, that in some Christian Churches where this doctrine of the Immaculate conce­ption is maintained, our blessed Saviour is pictured as one ready to pursue and smite the sinner, when as his mother is pictu­red as one ready to shelter and to receive him, which false representation seems to have proceeded from as false an imagi­nation broached by Gabriel upon the canon of the Mass, Lect. 8. Sibi reservavit justiti­am, Virgini Mariae concessit misericordiam; ‘there being two principal boons of the heavenly kingdome, justice and mercy, the King of heaven hath reserved the justice to himself, but the mercy he hath bestow­ed on the blessed Virgin:’ 'tis very unsound and unsafe divinity, that robs the King of Saints of the fairest slower in his Crown, to make a garland for his mother; but be­sides [Page 335] the unsoundness and unsafeness, whereby it may destroy us, there is also in it some unreasonableness whereby it de­stroys it self; for all inclination to mercy in the creature is meerly from receiving it, as in the Creatour meerly from giving it: God being mercy in himself at first hath mercy because he will have mercy, and at last will have mercy because he hath had mercy on us; so that in him, giving or shewing mercy is the onely cause of mercy, because he can­not repent him of his own gifts; but man being misery in himself, learns to shew mer­cy by having first received it, and continues to shew mercy, because he still expects it; so that in him, receiving mercy is the onely cause of shewing mercy, for that he will not be unthankfull to God for the free gift of his mercy, wherefore this supposition that the Blessed Virgin needed no mercy, cannot be agreeable with this position, that she is most ready to shew mercy, unless we will grant a non sequitur in the Apostle who thus ar­gues concerning Christ himself (the onely fountain of mercy, as God, to give it, the onely channel of mercy, as men, to derive and to convey it) that because he was tempt­ed in all points as we are, therefore he is the [Page 336] more to be touched with the feeling of our in­firmities, Heb. 4. 15.

And the same doctrine which he preach­eth concerning the head, he enforceth con­cerning the members, advising them therefore to forgive, because they had been forgiven, therefore to be kinde & tender-hearted to their brethren, because God for Christs sake had been kinde and tender-hearted to them: he maketh choice of the best Topick that can be for an argument to perswade them to mercy, even the infinite and undeserved mercies of God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: Forgive one another: even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you: here are the two first persons of the most holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, and if we look back upon the 30. verse we may see the third person; and grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed to the day of Redemption; how shall they not grieve that holy Spirit? even by doing what follows in the next words, v. 31. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and an­ger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put a­way from you with all malice, and be ye kinde one to another, &c. this bitterness and ma­lice least grieves your spirits, but it most grievs Gods Spirit, which cannot enter into [Page 337] a malicious soul, and much less will dwell there: wherefore you must put away all bitterness, wrath, and anger, if you would have this heavenly guest come into your souls, and you must keep them away if you would have him make any stay and abode when he is come: the Apostle reckons up three several kindes or degrees of that fury, which opposeth and grieveth Gods holy Spirit; the first is bitterness, a light distaste or dislike of the minde: the second is wraths a violent commotion and disaffection of the heart; both these contain themselves with­in doors, and are to be rectified not by Ari­stotle's but by Christs Ethicks, which alone reach to the inward man: the third is anger, an outward exorbitant passion, that expres­ses it self in clamour and evil speaking, and malicious doing; not one of these but is a­gainst some act of true mercy, and according­ly the Apostle prescribes three acts of mer­cy which will expell them all: for first he requires us to be [...] benigni, kinde or cour­teous, that's against the bitterness in the di­staste or dislike of the minde: Secondly, he requires us to be [...] misericordes, tender-hearted or mercifull, that's against the wrath, the strong inward impression of an­ger [Page 338] in the heart: Thirdly, he requires us to be [...] donantes or condonantes, forgi­ving or pardoning, that's against the anger or fury, the outward expression of exorbi­tant passion either in our words or works: and as a sufficient motive to all this (not­withstanding it is so contrary to flesh and bloud) he onely wills us to consider how much kindness, tender-heartedness, and for­giveness we have all found from God, and then we shall never think it much to be kinde and tender-hearted, and to forgive one another: and to this motive, though e­nough of it self, we may further adde ano­ther argument (for we have need of argu­ments more then enough to confute our un­bridled fury, and of motives more then e­nough to make us restrain it) that he who hath purchased all this mercy for us, hath taught us not to pray for it, and therefore not to hope for the blessing of it, upon o­ther terms, but onely upon this very con­dition, if we practise it; Forgive us our tre­spasses as we forgive them that trespass against us; as if he had said, make us to forgive as we desire to be forgiven, no less then make us desire to be forgiven as we stood in need of forgiveness: and this is agreeable with [Page 339] S. Chrysostome's gloss of the words, not upon the place, but in his 27 Sermon upon Genesis, (for it was his way of preaching, to explain many Texts as he quoted them) [...]. ‘Let us not think that in forgiving others we do a courtesie to them, for indeed we do the courtesie onely to our selves, who by this means do reap the benefit of that for­giveness which God hath promised, and our Saviour Christ hath purchased, but without forgiving can have no hopes to be forgiven:’ and this lesson are we taught all along throughout our Saviours whole life and doctrine, examine we his doctrine, 'tis for the greatest part nothing else but so many several instructions and injunctions of mercy; I will make but one instance, and that in his Sermon upon the mount, S. Mat. 5, 39. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; and v. 44. But I say unto you, Love your ene­mies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despight­fully use you, and persecute you; as if he had said, what ever others have said before it matters not, if you will be my disciples you must observe and obey what I say unto you, [Page 340] and I say unto you, that all your labour and zeal must be to overcome one another in goodness and in mercy. Again, examine we our Saviours whole life, we shall finde it no­thing else but one continued practise and president of mercy: sometimes we find him preaching and praying, to cure the souls; sometimes working miracles, to cure or re­lieve the body; sometimes helping the bo­dy, sometimes helping the soul, but always doing some good either to body or soul: so that we can have no truer touchstone to dis­cover and discern gold from dross, true Christianity from vain Hypocrisie, then is this of shewing mercy: nor may we object, That many and great injuries have provo­ked us to wrath, and that solicites us to re­venge: for though it cannot be denied but this last and worst age of the world, hath silled our mouths with too many such ob­jections; yet our hearts may in no case be full of them, but herein also we must imi­tate our blessed Saviour, who though he were the party offended, yet came himself to make the atonement and reconciliation, and hath left not onely his example, but al­so his blessing behinde him to encourage us to do so to, saying, Blessed are the peace-ma­kers, [Page 341] S. Matth. 5. 9. If thine enemy come first to thee, he will get this blessing, and thou wilt lose it; and if thou lose this bles­sing, how wilt thou keep thy Saviour that pronounced it? It is a mere madness in any man to break down that bridge over which himself is to pass, the bridge over which we hope to pass in our journey from earth to heaven is mercy; he that breaks down this bridge, breaks off his own passage into eter­nal rest: Hypocrites may pretend zeal for an occasion of cruelty; but true Christians will be sure to follow the example of Christ, to be always doing some act of mercy: and wheresoever we find massacres and outrages, we may safely say, there is the pretence, but there is not the power of the true Christian Religion: that looks after no bloud, but the bloud of Christ, to contemplate the merit of it with admiration, to congratulate the mercy of it with thankfulness: that bloud never baths, but it likewise supples; whether the bloud of a goat will soften the Adamant or no, let the naturalist dispute; but that the bloud of the immaculate Lamb doth soften the most stony hearts, the di­vine must determine. Therefore if the heart be still in its hardness, 'tis still in its [Page 342] uncleanness; for it cannot be cleansed but by the bloud of Christ, and that bloud ne­ver cleanseth but where it softens. 'Tis the part of salvages to overcome good with evil, but 'tis the part of Christians to overcome evil with good; Rom. 12. 21. Be not over­come of evil, but overcome evil with good: every Christian must look for this fight, and strive for this victorie: the fight is to en­counter with evil, the victory is to overcome it: the fight is against a twofold enemie, the one without, the malice of the devil and his instruments; the other within, our own weakness and impatience; and the victorie is likewise twofold, one is over our enemies, for we overcome evil; another is over our selves, for we overcome evil with good: this is the way to be more then conquerours, and to get the victory over the greatest Poten­tates, even while they trample us under their feet; not by resisting, much less re­turning their outrages, but by forgiving them: Father, forgive them, they know not what they do, was a voice of our dying Savi­our, and therefore perchance weak in its noise, but sure strong in its power; for if it did not shake the foundations of hell to conquer the devils tyrannie, yet it did pierce [Page 343] the battlements of heaven, to open Gods kingdom, insomuch that those thousands which were afterwards converted at two se­veral sermons, Acts 2. 14. & Acts 4. 4. did ow their conversion more to this one voice, then to those very sermons w^ch converted them.

And as the Head himself declared his Almighty power most chiefly in shewing mer­cie and pitie, so hath he given the same pri­viledge to his members, to conquer more by their mercy then by their power, by their praying then by their fighting, by their tears then by their swords. Saul was the man at whose feet the witnesses laid down their clothes whiles they stoned S. Stephen, so that he seems to have had the chiefest hand in that Protomartyrs bloud: Omnium lapidantium vestimenta servabat, ut omnium manibus lapidaret, saith S. Aug. in Psal. 147. ‘He kept the clothes of those that stoned Stephen, that he might stone him with all their hands.’ Was there ever a more bloudy persecutour then this Saul, that em­brued not onely his hands, but also his heart with bloud? That breathed out threatnings and slaughters against the disciples of the Lord, andcunningly acted his threatnings by others hands, that he might not put himself [Page 344] out of breath; yet even this persecutour is presently after made a convert; and the text intimateth in the history, no other reason of his conversion, but this prayer of S. Ste­phen immediately before the stones had beaten his soul out of his body, Lord lay not this sin to their charge. And I doubt not, but that prayer of our own Church, [That it may please thee to forgive our enemies, per­secutours, and slanderers, and to turn their hearts,] will yet in Gods good time, work the conversion of some of those men, who now think they do God good service by de­nying others to serve him; and God forbid that we should ever cease thus to pray even for those that most resist and oppose our prayers; though thereby they do also re­sist, and oppose their own conversion.

The Church of Christ may in times of persecution lose its power, but may not lose its mercy; for it can be no longer Chri­stian then it is mercifull; Mercifull in gi­ving, freely ye have received, freely give, (S. Matth. 10. 8.) Mercifull in forgiving, not untill seven times, but untill seventie times seven, Saint Matth. 18. 22. Deus semper miseretur puniendo citra condignum, praemiando ultra condignum, saith the Schole, ‘[Page 345] God is always mercifull in punishing less, in rewarding more then we deserve;’ so is God Church, always mercifull both in its rewards and in its punishments. The dispen­sations of Baptismal and of Penitential grace, both such acts of mercy, that they fall under an [...], that no sufficient retribution, no sufficient amends can be made for them; yet both these acts of mer­cie are so proper to the Christian Church, that among all the sects of the world, we cannot find one which comes near the Chri­stian Religion in the zeal of bringing those that are born in sin, to Baptisme; and of those that have lived in sin, unto Repen­tance. It was a question in S. Cyprians time, whether infants might be admitted to ba­ptism before the eighth day; and Fidus the Presbyter thought not, because the law of Circumcision required a stay till the eighth day, and Baptism succeeded in the place of Circumcision: but S. Cyprian and the or­thodox Clergy of the Church of Carthage were of another opinion, and the sixtie six good Bishops give this as the chiefest reason for it, in their Epistle to Fidus the Presby­ter, (Cypr. epist. 59. cum Pamel.) Uni­versi poitùs judicavimus, nulli bominum [Page 346] nato misericordiam Dei & gratiam denegan­dam; nam cùm Dominus in Evangelio suo dicat, Filius hominis non venit animas ho­minum perdere, sed salvare, quantum in no­bis est, si fieri potest, nulla anima perdenda est: ‘We all with one consent agreed, that the mercy and grace of God was to be denied to none; for since our Lord and Master himself hath professed in his Go­spel, that he came not to destroy mens souls’ (we translate lives, but the Greek is [...] souls) ‘but to save them; 'tis our duty as much as lyes in us, to keep all souls from the danger of destruction.’ This was that Councils main argument why chil­dren should be baptized in case of necessity, before they were eight days old, though we have now a generation that will not baptize them till almost twice that number of years. But Solomons judgement stands upon record, whereby still to discern which is the true mother, and which the false: for she who hath the tender bowels is certainly the true mother, not she who cares not what be­comes of the childe; (1 King. 3.) so is it still; Faction is merciless and cruel, fears not to see the sword drawn, to be not onely bathed but also sheathed in bloud; whereas [Page 347] the true Religion is of tender bowells, would have none of her children perish or be in danger of perishing; therefore since baptism is the onely ordinary means of sa­ving children, by taking away the guilt of their original sin; and repentanee is the onely ordinary means of saving men, by ta­king away their actual sins, the true Chri­stian Church never yet thought fit to de­lay the one, nor to deny the other: but e­ven in the strictest discipline that ever was exercised against notorious offenders, they that returned to the bosome of the Church were admitted to penance, and those peni­tents that were in danger of death, were also admitted to the holy Communi­on; we have Presidents or rather pre­cepts for both in the first Council of Nice; the 11. Canon admitting the offenders to penance; the 13. Canon admitting the penitents to the holy Communion: [...], saith the 11. Canon, those that un­der Licinius had denied the Christian faith, being not compelled thereunto by the vio­lence of persecution, though they were un­worthy of mercy, yet they were not exclu­ded from it, but the Council admitted them [Page 348] to penance: Again, [...], saith the 13. Canon, those that were under penance, if they were in any imminent danger of death, were pre­sently permitted to receive the holy Com­munion, as the provision necessary for their last journey, though if they recovered of their sickness, they were to be reduced back again to the order of penitents, till they had fully accomplished their enjoyned pe­nance; and this relaxation or indulgence (saith the same Canon) was the ancient and Canonical Law of the Church, [...], and the like may be pro­ved from the Epistle of the Clergy of Rome to S. Cyprian (Cyp. cum Pamel. Epist. 31.) wherein they profess a relaxati­on of penance to those that by sickness were summoned to Gods Tribunal, though they were resolved that the rest should stay till they had a new Bishop: Thus we see it was the Law of the Church in the times of the severest discipline, that mercy should be above justice; and the holy com­munion administred (in case of necessity) even to those whom the ecclesiastical cen­sures did still exclude from it: against this Law of the Church Novatus was peccant [Page 349] in the defect, for he would admit none to penance that had once fallen away; but Novatianus was peccant in the excess, for he would needs have all promiscuously ad­mitted without any penance; And S. Cyp. mightily opposed them both (which may shew us the antiquity of this discipline, for he lived within 230 years after the passion of our blessed Saviour) as well Novatus his inhumanity, in admitting none, as No­vatianus his facility in admitting all: for Novatianus was so zealous of encreasing his party, that what heretick or apostate soever would come to him, and be rebapti­zed, might be received into his Congrega­tion without any recantation of his errour or of his apostasie; but Novatus on the other side was so rigid and severe, that he would not receive those that had recanted, and made earnest suit to undergo their pe­nance, that they might be again fully re­conciled to the Church: S. Cyprian in ma­ny of his Tracts, especially in his Epistles, complaineth frequently of the petulancy of both these Sectaries and their Adherents, advising all Christians that had a care of their souls to abstain from their company, and much more from their communion; [Page 350] and to keep themselves to the well ground­ed and well setled discipline of the Church, which as it refused no penitents, so it durst not countenance any in sin and in impeni­tency; and yet even this severe Bishop in his greatest strictness for Church discipline, though he would not allow the Martyrs and Confessours to be too importunate for the over speedy reconciliation of notorious offenders (in which he had also the appro­bation of the Clergy of Rome) yet if an offender had been overhastily reconciled, he would not by any means make void that act of mercy: thus we read, that when the Bishop Therapius had given the peace of the Church to Victor the Presbyter (for the Bishops were in those dayes the governours in chief, if not in whole of the Ecclesiasti­cal Communion) before he had made pub­lick satisfaction for his offence, though S. Cyprian and his collegues were much trou­bled that he had so hastily received him in­to the Communion of the Church nullâ infirmitate urgente, when as no dangerous sickness of his had called for a dispensation of the Canon, yet they would not revoke that act of grace that had been done by The­rapius, but let Victor still enjoy the benefit [Page 351] of it, thereby shewing that the true Reli­gion though it stand much upon the exact­ness of Justice, yet is much more delight­ed in the exercise of Mercy; the words of S. Cyprian and his fellow Collegues met together in a Synod meerly about Church­discipline, are very remarkable, Sed librato apud nos diu consilio, satis fuit objurgare Therapium collegam nostrum quod temerè hoc fecerit, & instruxisse ne quid tale de caetero faciat; pacem tamen quomodocunque a sa­cerdote Dei semel datam non putavimus au-ferendam. (Cyp. Ep. 59. cum Pam.) ‘after we had taken long and full advice about this business, we thought it enough to reprove Therapius our Collegue, that he had done this rashly, and require him to do so no more; but the peace which had been given by a Priest intrusted of God to give it, though given after never so ill a manner, we did not think fit to take away again, and therefore declare, that Victor shall still enjoy the communion of the Church.’ But what do I speak of Mercy above Justice in the true Religion, when she would not call for Justice at all were it not that she might shew Mercy? for thus she proceeds to deliver a sinner to Sa­tan, [Page 352] that she may keep him from hell; as faith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. 5. to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; true Religion would not exercise that Justice which is for the destru­ction of the flesh, were it not to make way for that Mercy which is for the salvation of the spirit, therein resembling God himself who thrusts men away from him meerly out of the necessity of Justice, but embraceth and receiveth them from his incessant desire and delight of shewing mercy.

CHAP. VIII.

HE that is willing to expostulate with God, can never be unwilling to of­fend him; for it is impossible that man should ever be dashed out of countenance by the consideration of any sin, who is re­solved [Page 353] to justifie and maintain all his sins; such a man is more fit for the School of the Peripateticks, then for the School of the Prophets, because he is made rather for di­sputation then for devotion: and truly this is the chiefest reason that we can alledge for the continuance of all those grand mis­carriages that are in the practise of Religi­on, whether by way of superstition or of pro­faneness; that men wedded to their own corrupt practises are in a manner resolved to expostulate with God rather then to comply with him; 'tis such a Clergy humour as this, which the Prophet Malachi com­plaineth of Mal. 1. 6. saying, unto you, O Priests, that despise my Name; and ye say, wherein have we despised thy Name? they would needs be disputing when they should have been repenting; for all this while they did neither honour God as a Father, not fear him as a Master; for so saith the Text, a son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a father where is mine honour, if I be a master where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts, unto you O Priests that despise my Name? It is a foul shame for any to despise Gods Name, but most especially for those who are most bound to [Page 354] glorifie it, that is, for his Priests who are peculiarly consecrated to serve God, and therefore ought to be more particularly de­voted to his service; no man may securely contemn Religion, but he least who is en­trusted to teach it, for what he is en­trusted to teach, he is much more com­manded to practise: and truly this is the proper work of Religion (which the Pro­phet here cals for) to glorifie the Name of God, that is, to honour God as a Father, and to fear him as a Master; for without this honour and this fear, we cannot take God for God, but it is the work of Religion to make man take God for God: and how can that be, but by acknowledging and professing his Verity, Omnipotency, Good­ness and Excellency? so that the work of Religion most especially consists in Faith, Hope, Charity, and Reverence, or holy Fear; for by Faith we acknowledge Gods eternal truth or Verity, by Hope his Omnipotency, by Love his allsufficient Goodness, and by Fear or reverence his Soveraign Majesty or su­pertranscendent excellency.

Thus he that beleeveth in God acknow­ledgeth God to be God, because he ac­knowledgeth him to be the first Truth or [Page 355] chiefest Verity; he that hopeth in God ac­knowledgeth God to be God, because he relyeth on his Omnipotency; he that loveth God with all his might, acknowledgeth God to be God because he taketh him for the chiefest good, being wholly satisfied with his allsufficiency: and lastly, he that feareth God with all his might, acknowled­geth God to be God, because he taketh him for the Soveraign Majesty, or for the great­est excellency; wherefore God is truly to be honoured as a Father by Faith, Hope, and Charity, and to be honoured as a Master by Fear and Reverence: and the true Religion reacheth us to honour God both as a Fa­ther and as a Master; as a Father by belee­ving in him, for shall not a Son beleeve his Father? though all others beleeve him no further then for his honesty, yet his own Son is bound to beleeve him also for his au­thority: again, to honour him as a Father by hoping and expecting a blessing from him, and more particularly our inheritance; for as faith looks to the promise, so hope looks to the thing promised; and we can never look upon God too much, and much less can we look for too much from him: For if we being evil know how to give good [Page 356] gifts to our children, how much more shall our heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him, S. Luk. 11. 13 the word Father is there titulus argumentosus, not so truly a word as 'tis an Argument; if father be the antecedent, how shall not giving the holy Spirit be the consequent? and yet 'tis ob­servable, that no such gift is asked expli­citely in our Lords most holy Prayer, to which this promise hath immediate relati­on, to teach us that much more is asked in that most holy prayer then is mentioned, and yet much more is given then is asked when we do indeed say Our Father, with a true filial affection.

Thirdly, True Religion teacheth us to honour God as a Father, by loving him with all our strength, with all our soul, with all our might; for every childe doth love his natural Father, unless himself be a mon­ster of nature, and doth therefore love him because he is principium vitae, because he is the beginning of his natural life; much more do the children of God love thir spi­ritual Father, who hath be gotten them a­gain unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that sadeth [Page 357] not away, reserved in heaven for them; 1 Pet. 1. 3, 4. our fathers here do beget us but to dead hopes, for we are born to dye, and are often unable to maintain us when we are be­gotten; but our Father in heaven, hath be­gotten us to a lively hope, or to the hope of everlasting life, and is no less able to pre­serve life then he was to give it, for he hath an incorruptible and undefiled inheritance that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven, to bestow upon his children; so that he is in­finitely more to be loved, not onely as the giver of life, but also as the preserver of it: thus doth the true Religion teach us to honour God as a Father, by Faith, Hope, and Charity; and it doth also teach us to honour him as a Master, by due and lowly reverence; for to worship, and reverence, and to fear God is to take and acknow­ledge God for God, because it is to take and acknowledge him for the chiefest ex­cellency; for reverence alwaies presuppo­seth excellency, and therefore according to the proportion of reverence, is the opini­on of excellency: Let me then shew what opinion I have of Gods excellency by my reverence, and let me worship and fall down, and kneel before the Lord my maker, and not [Page 358] onely my maker, to call for my lowest re­verence, but also my Master to quell and punish mine irreverence; for though I may easily draw near him with my lips, yet I can hardly draw near him with my knee, whilest my heart is far from him; there is indeed the same natural distance of the knee, and of the mouth from the heart, but not the same moral distance; for so the mouth is much farther from the heart then is the knee; the profession of godliness may be altogether without the heart, but not so the practise of it: 'tis much easier for a man to be an hypocrite in his words then in his deeds, in his pretences then in his practises: for actually to serve God is a matter of labour and vexation, even in re­gard of the outward man, who all that while is withheld from serving himself ei­ther in his profit or in his pleasure; but verbally to serve God, that is, to talk of ser­ving him is nothing at all, it being as easie a peece of lip-labour to say to God, as it is to say to man, Your humble Servant; and yet still be far from doing him any service; thus did that Son, who being commanded to go work in the vineyard, presently answered, I go Sir, but went not, S. Matth. 21. 30. and [Page 359] those who are most ready to promise their fealty and homage to their master in hea­ven, are too too often least ready to perform their promises; which is the cause of that reiterated complaint in the Text, this peo­ple honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; a complaint that needs still be much repeated because it is still so little regarded, for setting aside this empty honour of our lips, and what have we left but Ichabod, where is the glory? for in truth the glory is departed from our Israel, the ark of God is taken, nay, trampled un­der our feet: and all this irreligion and pro­faneness must needs be where men will have a Religion that shall so honour God as not also fear him, that shall pretend to honour him as a Father, but not care to fear him as a Master: for a Son that refuseth to be a servant, will soon refuse to be a Son; and he that once begins not to fear his Father, will soon begin not to honour him; and a ser­vant that cares not to continue a servant by fearing his Master, will easily not care to turn an enemy by provoking him; for he cannot desire to please him, if he do not fear to displease him, either by disrespect to his person, or by disobedience to his com­mands: [Page 360] and therefore it is very necessary, that we all think of Gods Majesty which is able to confound us, no less then of his mercy which is willing to save us; and come into his presence with fear and reve­rence to acknowledge his incomprehensi­ble greatness no less then with Faith, Hope, and Love to acknowledge his infinite and undeserved goodness: thus doth Hierotheus speak of God in the language of the di­vine Arcopagite (libro de divin. nom. cap. 1) [...] and again, [...], his being is a­bove all being to shew the greatness of his Majesty; his loving is above all loving, to shew the goodness of his mercy, which made Damascene, undertaking to write of the Orthodox Faith, after he had begun his first Chapter de Deo, immediately give this Title to his second Chapter, de Effabilibus & Ineffabilibus, Cognoscibilibus & Incog­noscibilibus, because the things concerning God are both [...], such as we can neither know nor express; and hence it is, that our knee is fitter to proclaim the Majesty of God then is our tongue; for the tongue cannot express what the man doth not know, but the knee can and will ac­knowledge [Page 361] the Majesty of God, though we cannot know it, if so be we do indeed but truly beleeve it: and it is observable that in the 99 Psalm after the Psalmist had declared the greatness of Gods Majesty, he exhorts men to glorifie him in their words, but much more in their deeds, for he calls upon them but once to praise him, v. 3. let them praise thy great and terrible Name; but he calls upon them twice to worship him, v. 5. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool, for he is holy; and again v. 9. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his ho­ly hill, for the Lord our God is holy; taking it for granted, that the Name of God was more to be magnified by reverence and a­doration though we spake but little, then by all the loud praises and hymns which we could utter, whilest we continued guilty of irreverence: and S. Paul setting forth the condition of a true convert, makes him re­verent in his behaviour as well as zealous in his thanksgivings, for (saith he) falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth; he falls down and worships, there's his reverence; he reports that God is in you of a truth, there's his thanks-giving; and if either of [Page 362] these be wanting, for ought we can see by the Text, he is yet no true convert, but is still in the same state of ignorance and of unbelief as when he first came into the Church to hear those that prophesied.

But the better to set forth the reverence that is not to be parted from the true Re­ligion, I will briefly run over those ten Names of God, which S: Hierome hath col­lected together in one of his Epistles to Marcellus (ep. 136.) for there is not one of those Names but will strike a terrour in­to the soul of man, when he comes to bow himself before the most High God; which is the reason that not one of all these Names is once mentioned in the Book of the Canticles, Quia in hoc spirituali Epitha­lamio merito ea nomina praetermittuntur, quae ad incutiendum terrorem accommodata erant, ‘because that Song of Songs being made to express the marriage joy of the soul with Christ, it was not thought fit to use any of those terrible names of God which might occasion the interruption of that joy.’

The first Name of God is [...] rendred [...] by the LXX, but by Aquila according to its Etymology, [...], the strong one; [Page 363] this Name Exod. 20. 5. is joyned with Jea­lousie, in that very Commandment where­in God requires our Religion to be with re­verence, as well as without Idolatry; [...] a jealous God; he is God and a­ble to punish us, he is jealous and will not let us scape unpunished, no, nor our chil­dren after us, if we shew that we hate him by loving irreligion; whether it be by su­perstition or by profaneness, whether by idolatry or by irreverence; for we may cer­tainly bring a vengeance and a curse, not onely upon our selves, but also upon our posterity, by our irreverence which is against the positive precept, no less then by our I­dolatry which is against the negative pre­cept of the second Commandment.

The second Name of God is [...], and this Name we finde Hab. 1. 12. in these words, Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? [...] [My God] and [mine Holy One] are put as terms convertible, for he is but my Idol not my God, unless he be also mine Holy One, that is, one whom I conceive to be holy, and rejoyce that he is so; the profane person can­not deny God to be the Holy One, though he rejoice not in his Holiness; he would [Page 364] fain make a division betwixt these two pro­perties of God, Power and Holiness; he would either have God a strong one without holiness, to allow profaneness; or he would have him a holy one without strength, that he might not avenge it. But we must look upon his strength as the fortress and bull­work of his holiness, that if we will not learn to detest profaneness and irreverence because of his holiness, yet we may learn to dread it because of his strength.

The third Name of God is [...], which we meet withall in the first words of the Bible, Gen. 1. 1. [...] Dii creavit, where is a noun of the plural number signifying God, with a verb of the singular; which strange Syntaxis hath one gloss a­mong the Jews, another among the Chri­stians: among the Jews it is taken for an argument of the greatness of Gods majesty, for so saith Aben Ezra [...] In the holy tongue (that is, in the Hebrew) it is a course or way of honour to speak of a great person in the plural number, to wit, thereby to intimate his greatness: but among the Christians this same manner of speech is ta­ken for an argument of the Holy & Undivided [Page 365] Trinity; The noun in the plural number signi­fying the plurality of Persons, the verb in the singular number, the Unity of essence; we may accordingly make an excellent use of either gloss in our devotions: for if we seriously consider the greatness of Gods majestie, we will be sure to keep our distance in our prayers, and not be guilty of that undecent and ungodly familiarity which begetteth a contempt of God, if at lest it be not be­gotten of it: for it will certainly end in a slighting of his majestie, if it do not begin in it. This ungodly familiarity with God, teacheth us to offer that to God which doth cost us nothing, contrary to his resolution who was a man after Gods own heart, and therefore best acquainted with his liking, 2 Sam. 24. 24. Nay, but I will buy it of thee at a price, neither will I offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me no­thing: for indeed such offerings do but pro­claim a contempt of God, as appears, Mal. 1. 7. They that offer polluted bread, do in ef­fect say, The table of the Lord is contem­ptible; and they are accordingly sent to Court to learn better manners, and better language, v. 8. Offer it now unto thy Govern­our, will he be pleased with thee, or accept [Page 366] thy person? the Chalde Paraphrase saith, [...] to thy King, but the Hebrew word is [...] to thy under Governour, (and indeed the Jews had no other af­ter their captivity,) offer such stuff as this but to the captain that is set over thee, to thy Governour who is no King, but himself under command, and he will reject thy gift, and scorn and disdain thee; and how then darest thou offer it unto thy God, who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords? how darest thou offer the blind, the lame, the sick to him for a sacrifice, which is thy bound­en duty, when as thou darest not offer it to thy Governour as a free and a voluntary gift? we may offer unto God blind prayers, for want of premeditation, which is the souls fore-sight; lame prayers for want of good affections, which are the feet of the soul; and sick prayers, by reason of our undigested devotions; [...], (so I con­ceive it should be read in Hes [...]chius, and not in two words, [...] He is sick whose stomach is oppressed with crudities and inconcoctions, so that he cares not for his meat, and is besides clean out of temper; and such are sick prayers, which are crude, in­digested, distempered prayers: thus we may [Page 367] offer unto God, blind, lame, and sick pray­ers; but in so doing we do rather in truth offer him defiances then prayers, we do ra­ther contemn then worship him; unless we will say, that God is less honoured with the Christians prayers then he was with the Jews sacrifices, or that we have a greater priviledge granted us, that we may more securely dishonour him. Again, if we seri­ously consider, that there is an incomprehen­sible mysterie in this incomprehensible maje­stie, three persons in one God, we will la­bour for such prayers as may be suitable with the properties of the persons, no less then with the majestie of the Godhead: thus if we consider the power of the Father, the wisdome of the Son, the charity of the holy Ghost, we will earnestly desire to have our mouths and our hearts filled with powerfull, wise, and charitable prayers, not guilty ei­ther of emptiness, or of indiscretion, or of faction: but however it is necessarie that in all our prayers we invocate One God in Tri­nity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for the Father, Son, and holy Ghost are equally to be worshipped, and equally to be glorified: nor may we communicate with other Christians [Page 368] in their prayers, who worship not one God in three coequal and coeternal Persons, no more then we may with Turks and Jews, who worship an idole in stead of God: for S. John in saying, Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father, 1 S. John 2. 23. hath plainly taught us, that Turks and Jews do not worship the same God with us Christians, and since we do certainly worship the true God, it must needs follow that they do worship an idole in stead of God; wherefore doubtless all Anti-Trinita­rians are idolaters: for though many of them talk much of the spirit, yet they have kept him onely in their mouths, but thrust him out of their Creed, and consequently in vain do they pretend to godliness, whiles they fight against God: for they cannot truly honour him in their prayers, whiles they falsly conceive of him in their belief, not acknowledging Three Persons, Father, Son, and holy Ghost, in one immortal, invisi­ble, and onely wise God.

The fourth Name of God alledged by S. Hierome, is [...] quod Septuaginta [virtutum;] Aquila, [exercituum] trans­tulerunt, (saith he) which the Septuagint translate Powers, but Aquil a translates Hosts. [Page 369] And this name we find Isa. 6. 3. Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Hosts, which is the [...] of the Cherubims, the true ground of the hymn called [...] in the Church; for [...], is but a declaration of [...], ‘Holy O God, Holy O Pow­erfull, Holy O Immortal,’ is but an expositi­on of this, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Sabaoth: and who can say, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, and not say also, Heaven and earth are full of the majestie of glory? and who can confess that heaven and earth are full of Gods majestie, and not earnestly desire, that his own soul may not be empty of it? And indeed this Name of God, the Lord of Hosts, is able to strike terrour into their hearts, who make it their work to terrifie all the world, multitudes of armed men, who have violence in their mouths to threaten, and swords in their hands to act their threats: for 'tis not their multitudes, or their strength can bear them out in their impiety and injustice, since there is far greater strength (& there are far great­er multitudes with God, then with them, even all the hosts of Heaven and earth. Let this consideration move me to take that [Page 370] care of my soul, which the approach of an army would me to about mine estate; that I may take heed above all, least I be spiritu­ally plundred: for what have I worth the keeping, if I have lost my Saviour? and how shall I not lose my Saviour, if I lose my Religion? Let therefore those angry fellows of the children of Dan, ransack me as they did Micah, (Iudg. 18.) yet shall they never get any power over my Religi­on; nor shall it ever be said, They have taken away my God; for I am commanded by my Saviour, who best knew the right way of salvation, not to fear those hosts which kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul; but ra­ther to fear him who is Lord of hosts, and is able to destroy both body and soul in hell, and will certainly so destroy all those hosts that oppose him, if they impenitently persist and persevere in their oppositions. Let me thus in my greatest frights, think more of spiritual then of carnal Terrours; and though I may perchance be almost frighted out of my wits, yet I shall be sure of this, that I shall not be frighted out of my Religion.

The fifth Name of God is [...], quod nos excel sum dicimus (saith the same Saint Hierome) the most High: and this Name [Page 371] is recorded, Gen. 14. 18. where it is said, that Melchisedeck was the Priest of the most High God: and thus let me with the hea­venly host, say, Glory to God in the Highest, S. Luke 2. 14. let me always think of his Highness, who is no less above heaven then above earth; He is in the Highest, I am in the lowest, in a twofold deep, in duplici pro­sundo, inobedientiae & miseriae, as S. Gregory said of Jonas, when he was swallowed up in the whales belly; in the depth of disobedi­ence, and in the depth of misery, and there­fore in the depth of misery, because in the depth of disobedience. Out of these depths have I called unto thee, O Lord: Lord hear my voice, and let thine ear consider well the voice of my complaint, that I may be deli­vered out of the depth pf misery, and let not thine eye be too extreme to mark what is done amiss that I may not be confounded in the depth of disobedience; so shall I say with great admiration. and greater consola­tion, Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, who humbleth himself to be­hold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth, Psal. 113. 5, 6. the higher he dwelleth, the lower he humbleth himself to behold me; the greater is his condescension, the [Page 372] greater is my consolation; let me then delight in my devotions, as being the only means to bring down my Saviour, & to raise up my soul.

The sixth Name of God is [...] QUI EST, unfit me, I AM, hath sent me unto you, Exod, 3. 14. and again, I AM that I AM. This Name of God should make me constant in my Religion, zealously to practise it at all times, and resolutely to maintain that practise in the worst times: for my Master in calling himself I AM, forbids me to be a changeling in his service; and in­deed true Christianity is able to say with Christ, Before Abraham was, I AM, (.John 8. 58.) for the same faith, hope, and cha­rity that is now truly Christian, was so from the beginning, and will be so unto the end: these were before Abraham, they were with him, they still remain after him: many Christian professions were of yesterday, and may not be tomorrow, because they depend on men, who at first contradict others, and at last themselves; but the Christian Religion hath truly deserved that motto of Semper cadem; that it was, is, and will be always the same. Men may give rules which one day may be like old Almanacks out of date; but the rule of righteousness which is of [Page 373] Gods giving, is the same for ever; there­fore the wise man would have us so to fear the Lord as not to meddle with them that are given to change, Prov. 24. 21. for to be gi­ven to change shews us rather to fear, men then to fear the Lord, since they are but he is not so given; the changers here spoken of saith Ralbag, were [...] such as would change the very commandment, the very Law it self if it were possible; and that's no wonder: for he that resolves not to obey the Law, must needs desire to change it, because that standing still in force doth still require him to obey, and accordingly must check his disobedience; so then he that is willing to change himself, may pro­bably pass from worse to better; but he that is willing to change his rule must necessarily pass from bad to worse, and still recede more and more from Religion, for that cannot but say with its Authour I AM, but he makes it his business to say, I AM NOT.

The seventh Name of God is [...] ado­nai, quem nos Dominum generaliter appella­mus, saith S. Hierome, which we generally interpret Lord; and this Name is mention­ed Gen. 18. 30. & 32. in Abrahams supplica­tion for Sodom, O let not the Lord be angry, [Page 374] and I will speak: other Lords are often an­gry when we intercede for our brethren, but this Lord is most pleased with such inter­cessions, and will cause our prayers to re­turn with a blessing either upon their heads if they be so righteous as to be capable of it, or at least into our own bosomes, if we heartily pray for the pardon of their un­righteousness; Thus Abrahams prayer, though it did not prevail to save Sodom, yet it did prevail to save Lot, his kinsman that was in it, for so saith the Text, Gen. 19. 29. It came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembred Abraham (surely for his Prayer in the Chapter before) and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he over­overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. his prayer was effectual for the inhabitants of that wicked place in tanto, in part, for it saved some; and would have been so in toto, in whole, to have saved all, had they been capable of salvation: but what it wanted of efficacity in one way, it had in another, for the effectual servent prayer of a righteous man cannot but avail much, if not to heal those for whom he prays, yet sure to heal himself; (S. Jam. 5. 16.) but this [Page 375] word [...] is derived from [...] Basis, the foot or base of a pillar, that sustaineth the building; qui basis instar sustentat mundum; he who is the supporter of the whole world; thus Exod. 23. 17. where the Hebrew word is [...] the Chaldee Paraphrast saith Do­minus seculi, which shews that the name [...] adonai is given to God for this reason, quia Dominus mundi, because he is the Lord of the world; he is so the foot or basis to sustain it, as that he is also the head to go­vern it; O happy man that is called to be a servant to such a master, who is the Lord, Josh. 3. 13. [...] therefore called [...] adonai, the Lord, because he is the Lord of all the earth; why should he fear this, and slatter that great man, to the betray­ing of his trust, the dishonouring of his Lord, the wounding of his conscience, and the endangering of his soul? Is not this in­deed to set up Baal which signifies a lord, against the true God? to set up a false lord against the true Lord, the Lord of all the earth? Let my soul be zealous for the ark of the Covenant of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth: and if Jordan part not to let me go through on dry ground into the Land of Canaan, but that I be forced to cry with [Page 376] the Psalmist, Save me, O Lord, for the wa­ters are come in even unto my soul, Psa. 69. 1. (for this indeed is a time for Jordan to o­verflow all his banks) yet this is my com­fort, these same waters shall be to clense me not to drown me, to wash me not to destroy me; for he whose Ark I am com­manded to bear) the Lord whom I serve, sitteth upon the water flouds, and ruleth the raging of the Sea, and the noise of its waves, and the madness of his people (though more outragious then they all) and he will over­rule all those to his own glory, and the sall­vation of all those who cast not off their a­legiance to him, but are true and faithfull to his kingdom, and zealous and painfull in his service.

The eighth Name of God is [...] Jah; Quod in Deo tantùm ponitur, & in Allelujah extremâ quoque syllabâ sonat, (saith the same Father) ‘these two letters that make up the word [...] Jah, are never joyned together but onely when they make up the Name of God, or when they make up his Praise, for whereas the Jews do rec­kon numbers by letters, they put [...] and [...] that is nine and six together to make up fifteen; rather then venture upon [...] and [...] [Page 377] which would make ten and five, because these two letters joyned together do make up this Name of God;’ this I take to be S. Hieromes meaning when he saith of Jah, quod in Deo tantum ponitur, that it is onely to be found in God, to wit, in his Name, and in the Song that praiseth him, which is, Hallelu-jah, the Song of the Saints and Angels in heaven, Rev. 19. 1. I heard a voice of much people in heaven, saying Allelujah; O let me sing this Song here whilst it is my duty, that I may come to sing it hereafter when it shall be my reward; and I am the rather encouraged to sing this Song, be­cause it hath in it this comfortable Name Jah, which hath its derivation from [...] idem quod [...] esse, and doth in effect pro­claim that doctrine which is set down in Wisd. 1. 13, 14. vers. for God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living, for he created all things that they might have their being; Jah is the fountain of being, and made me out of no­thing, that I might have a being, and there­fore I trust will so uphold me that I shall not make my self worse then nothing, to wish that I had never been; as it is better to have no being or to be annihilated, then [Page 378] to be everlastingly miserable, to be driven or banished from God, the authour of life into hell, there to be tormented in everlast­ing flames, so to have onely a sinfull being, when the spirit of grace is totally banished, and shut out of the heart, this is a kinde of moral annihilation; for as S. Augustine saith, In quantum mali, in tantum minus sumus, every sin being clongatio à Deo, a withdraw­ing of the soul from God, the more sins we commit and the longer we trade in sin, the farther we go from God; and as those that live under the North-Pole far distant from the Sun, want light and heat, being pincht with cold and encompass'd with darkness, so a sinfull soul that is at great distance from God, having no communion with him by his spirit, is in darkness and in the shadow of death, it is likewise chill'd with fears, and frozen with perplexed doubtings, full of terrour and amazing griefs, which are pec­cati pedissequae, the black hand-maids or at­tendants of sin, which is the work of the devil; for all that God made was good, and without him nothing was made; therefore as Augustine often inculcates in his Soliloquies, c, 5. Malum (or peccatum) nihil est, quia si­ne verbo factum est, sine quo factum est [Page 379] nihil; Illud autem malum est quod priva­tur illo bono per quod omnia facta sunt, quaecunque sunt: Sin is a kinde of no­thing, it is a mere privation of good, as a shadow is of light, and cold of heat, and a sinner deprived of all grace, having onely a bare being as a creature, is nothing in the esteem of God his maker, who onely, or chiefly values men, so far as he beholds the Jewels of his Spirit, his heavenly graces, as Love and Charity, Humility and Meek­ness, &c. residing and shining in them.

O thou, whose Name is [...] Jah, so enrich and possess our hearts with thy grace, that Christ may dwell in them by his Spirit, and we may dwell in him by faith, that the life of grace which we live here may be seconded and crowned with the life of glory hereafter.

The ninth essential proper Name of God is [...] Jehovah, which is called [...] the Name of four Letters, and of so many, and no more or less, consisteth the name of God, as it is used among all Nati­ons, as Greeks, Latines, Italians, Germans, English, Chaldeans, Syrians, Aethtopians, Egyptians, Assyrians, French, and Persians, and others, which are recorded by the ela­borate Learned Zanchius, which as he saith, [Page 380] l. 2. de Nat. Dei, c. 12. Est res magna, & ad­miratione digna, is (as his name is) a great or weighty matter, deserving admiration, not done without a special providence, and by divine Ordination; whereby God in­tended to declare and manifest, that as his name should be known to all Nations of the world, so likewise that he is God and Lord of all not onely of the Jews (as the Apostle speaks) but also of the Gentiles, and that in all the four parts of the world, Ele­ctos habeat quorum sit Jchovah, Pater & Servator; ‘he hath a set of certain num­ber of Elect, of whom he is Jehovah (or Lord)’ their Father also and preserver, &c. even as Christ saith in the Gospel, that he would gather his elect at the day of Judge­ment from the four winds, è quatuor mundi plagis, from the four quarters of the world; agreeable to which is that which Apoc. 4. is spoken of the four Beasts, i. e. the Ministers of the Word, whom he would stir up or appoint, to preach the Gospel that all the Elect may by the preaching or publishing of it be drawn and turnd to Jehovah their Lord.

This Name is termed by the Fathers, and other Writers [...], ineffabile, not [Page 381] for that it ought not to be uttered, as the Jews superstitiously conceited, who bore such an awfull respect to that name, that they deemed it a crime worthy of death, for any but sacred lips (those of the High-Priests) to express or name it, and that on set times, and in certain places, as in the Feast of Ex­piation, and in the Temple, and in the so­lemn benediction, Num. 6. 24, 25, 26. but this is not the reason why it is termed by the Ancients [...] ineffable, the pro­per cause or reason of it is to be fetch'd or derived from the nature or essence of God, because this is incomprehensible, therefore the Name Jehovah which denotes or signi­fies it, is said to be unutterable, whence it is called or stiled in the Jewish record [...] Shem Hammeporasch, nomen sepa­ratum, a separated or distinct name, not onely for that it is separate or far remote from our understandings, which cannot reach unto or dive into the profound noti­on of it, but also because that it is incom­municable to any creature, it being as they term it [...] haschem, the Name by way of eminence, the Name of Gods Essence, signi­fying and denoting him the great Lord of heaven and earth, that is, and was and ever [Page 382] shall be to all eternity; that in it the parts of time past, present, and to come are inclu­ded, is well known to those that have skill in the Hebrew tongue, and might as easily be demonstrated; it then signifies such an e­ternal essence or being ( [...]) so the Platonick Iamblicus calls God, who by his Almighty power hath not onely created, but still by his wise and powerfull Providence, pre­serves and governs all things in heaven and earth, and 3^ly gives a being to his promises, by a reall performance: Promissa complendo eaquodammodo facit esse & realiter subsiste­re, so Zanchius: this is intimated in that saying of God himself to Moses, Exo. 6. 3. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by my Name [Almighty] but by my Name [Jehovah] I was not known unto them: the meaning of which words is this, that the Patriarchs had a sence or knowledge of his power in the Creation of the world, and destroying the same by a sloud, likewise by many experimental mercies, by many blessings and benefits which he confer'd on their persons, in their many and great deli­verances, whereby he declared himself to be [...] most powerfull and all sufficient, ha­ving [Page 383] a store of all good things lock't up in the treasury of his goodness, however he had not as yet fully declared himself to be Jehouah, for that he had not actually per­formed that grand promise, Gen. 15. 13, 14. which he made unto Abraham and other Patriarchs, of delivering his people, the Children of Israel, out of the heavy bon­dage which they sustained many hundred years under the oppressing hands of the E­gyptians; but he assured Moses that now he was about to compleat that promise in their deliverance: and hereby God insinuated to Moses, that the Name Jehovah signifies him qui constans sit in omnibus promissis su­is, & omnia promissa sua quasi facit subsiste­re, who is constant and faithfull in the per­formance of all his promises (the duties and comforts which from this sacred Name may flow into our lives and consciences, are divers.

First, From that expression of God to Moses, by my Name Jehovah, &c. we may infer, that they onely know God to be Je­hovah, who doubt not of his good or fa­therly will towards them, and have found by a joyfull experience, or felt in the quiet peace and calm of an undisturbed consci­ence, [Page 384] that he is true and faithfull in the fullfilling of his word, in that by a gracious pardon, he hath abolished the guilt of their sins, and by the powerfull work of his spirit upon their souls, abated the strength of their imbred corruptions, and all this in and through the Lord Christ, in whom God hath manifested and declared himself to be Jehovah, in promissis verax & constans, so saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 1. 20. speaking of Christ our Saviour, In him all the promi­ses of God are yea and amen, i. e. have their compleat perfection, per Christum habent suum implementum, Grot.

Secondly, as the principal scope or end of this revealed Name Jehovah, is not onely that hereby we acknowledge God to be the Lord, who created all things out of nothing, and gave them a being; but also to teach or minde us of this truth, that all his promises both of the things of this life, and that which is to come, shall by him be certainly compleated, because that he who hath promised is most faithfull, besides powerfull and true in his performance: from hence our Christian duty is to exercise our faith by an humble and patient reliance on his promises, expecting a joyfull issue of [Page 385] them, and an undoubted performance, whilest we argue thus with our selves.

The Lord our God, the great Jehovah is omnipotent or almighty, he can do what he will do, and he will do what he hath promised; it is he who hath chosen us be­fore all worlds to salvation by Christ Jesus, it is he who hath in great mercy promised to all believers the remission of all their sins, and with it regeneration of our cor­rupt natures, protection in the midst of dangers, help in adversities, sustenance in this life, by a constant and fresh supply of all good things for our support and com­fort, perseverance in faith and well-doing; and lastly, a full possession of eternal life; even the beatifical vision in heaven, which is our essential happiness, he hath sealed up those blessings by a gracious promise to us; he who once promised to Abraham a­bove 400 years before, to redeem his peo­ple out of Egypt, and to bring them into the promised Land of Canaan, a type of heaven, and at last when all things were desperate, when their bondage was great and grievous, when they groaned under their heavy burthens, and were mightily oppressed with their task-masters, then he [Page 386] awaked out of the sleep of his connivance, and made good his ancient promise by de­stroying their enemies, and delivering them out of bondage, whereby he declared him­self to be indeed Jehovah, a God keeping his promises, how then can we doubt but that he will do the same or more for us by performing what he hath promised, and that with a solemn Oath to us; i. e. to save our souls by translating them by Christ to heaven, when they are released by death out of the prison of our bodies, he can do this, for he is [...], and he will do it for he is our faithfull Creatour, our Lord Jehovah; therefore though our flesh re­bels within us with fears and doubtings, though the world without us assault us with afflicting troubles, though the devil that [...] as Naz. calls him, that unwearied, implacable, restless enemy; begirt and infest us with divers temptations, though our sins speak discomfort and beget horrour in us, nay, though an Angel should teach or preach the conttary to us, yet ought we not to fear by distrusting Gods faithfulness and truth, which like himself, is immutable and infallible, and changeth not; upon this rock of his fidelity we [Page 387] ought to build our faith, beleeving that what things soever he hath decreed and promised whether they be temporals, or spirituals, the good things of this life or the other, we shall receive them at his mer­ciful hands, if we perform what is required on our parts, the condition of the new Co­venant, viz. Faith and Obedience, resigning up our souls wholly to God in an humble submission to his will, and waiting with pa­tience for that word he hath promised, and is yet to come. Thus David waited upon the Lord, Psa. 40. 1. [...] I wait­ed patiently upon the Lord, &c. this waiting on God (which implies a patient expecta­tion of what he hath promised to us here­after in his word, together with an humble resignation of our wills to his) it requires a great measure and strength of grace, such as was in Abraham, and that

First, In regard of the things waited for, which are far beyond, or transcend any thing which we can hope for in this world.

Secondly, In regard of that long day, or that long period of time which God hath taken and prefixt before he will com­pleat his promise.

[Page 388] Thirdly, the tediousness of delay which results from the former.

Fourthly, the many oppositions, trou­bles, crosses, afflictions and disappointments which in our way in this life we meet with.

Fifthly, the scandals or offences received from them which are in high esteem for Religion, when we see them fall into enor­mous sins we are apt to question Gods pro­mise of perseverance made unto us, where he says, I will never leave nor for sake you;

Adde to all these a sixth, and that is the untoward peevishness of our fainting na­ture apt to sink under the least discourage­ment. In these respects there must be more then an humane spirit to hold up the soul and carry it along to the end of that which we wait for; and they that with the Prophet David, Psa. 62. 1. truly wait upon God, from whom they expect salva­tion, they are thus spirited, thus quickned with divine grace, though they be cast in­to the place of Dragons, Psal. 44. 2. (or whales) overwhelmed with the sea of ca­lamities, and covered with the shadow of death, though with Jonah they lye in the midst of the whales belly, in a place of [Page 389] darkness, and in the deep, yet their faith in the great God, whose Name is Jehovah, will then and there shew it self lightsome and full of life by a gracious dependance on Gods truth and faithfulness, and expecting in his good time a comfortable issue of his promises: Such waiters whose God is the Lord Jehovah, in whom they trust, on whom they depend, and whom they con­stantly obey, not departing from his pre­cepts, when he seems to have forsaken them in their greatest distresses, such men are the prime, the onely Christians, who have in their soul the seal of Gods grace to assure them of their future happiness, O thou whose Name is the great Jehovah, and rulest all things in heaven and earth, send down from heaven the habitation of thy glo­ry, thine Holy Spirit into our hearts, and so possess our souls with an awful fear of thy Ma­jesty, and a filial love of thee for thy good­ness and mercy, that we abhorring all things that may displease thee, and obeying thy pre­cepts, may in the end of our days obtain the end of our hopes, and the fruit of thy pro­mises, which is the salvation of our souls, and eternal bliss, through the merits of our blessed Redeemer, our Lord Christ Jesus.

[Page 390] The tenth and last Name of God is [...] schaddai, by which God often stiled him­self, when he spake unto the Patriarchs, to uphold their spirits, and sustain their faith in the midst of their troubles, Gen. 17. 1. the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said unto him, I am [...]. In the same words he bespake Jacob, Gen. 35.11. hence it was that they also when they were to speak, or make mention of God, often used that Name or word. Thus Isaac when he bles­sed Jacob, Gen. 28.3. said, the God whose Name is [...] bless thee, and make thee to en­crease and multiply; so Jacob said to Jo­seph, the God [...] appeared to me in Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me.

As for the notion or meaning of the Name, Galatinus l. 2. c. 17. out of R. Moses the Egyptian, and Algazel, determines it, that it is a compounded term, and made up of these two parts or particulars, [...] which is in composition the same with [...] qui, and [...] which signifies sufficient and suffi­ciency, so that [...] in the whole latitude or acception of it denotes the alsufficiency of God, [...], qui in se & à se sufficienti­am, & abundantiam omnimodam habet it a ut [Page 391] nullius ope indigeat, ‘i. e. who in himself and from himself hath a sufficiency and abun­dance of all good things, and needs not the help of any creature.’ There is in God a fallness of power whereby he can do what he will, his will being the onely rule and bound of his power: therefore the Se­ptuagint do often render this word [...] by [...] and Job 8.3. by [...], he that doth or worketh all things; so in our English Translation, doth the Almighty per­vert justice?

As there is in many a man an empty full­ness, when bladder-like his soul is blown up with windy fancies of having what he hath not, or of more knowledge then he truly hath, so in God there is a fullness without any the least defect or degree of emptiness in God and Christ (who is God and man in one person) there is (as the Schools speak) Plenitudo repletiva and diffusiva, or pleni­tudo abundantiae and redundantiae; and abound­ing fullness, because no good thing, no gift nor grace is wanting in him, and a redound­ing fullness, because what gifts or graces soever be in us, they are all derived to our souls from him the ever-living and over­flowing fountain and spring of them, from [Page 392] whom they slow into our souls per Spiritum tanquam per canalem, through the spirit as it were a conduit-pipe, without any loss of them in him, or without any the least dimi­nution: and of his fullness have we all re­ceived, Joh. 1. 16. a fullness without any want argues a great perfection; quod plenè habetur perfectè & totalitèr habetur, A­quin.

Now if men through the door of faith opened by Gods blessed Spirit, did see the fullness, the excellency, and alsufficiency of God, it would so fill them with admiration, joy, and content, that having a commu­nion with God by his sanctifying spirit they would care for nothing else; they consi­dering what the Lord is, and beholding his glorious face in the glass of his Attributes, viz. his Wisedom, Power, and Justice, &c. upon this consideration they would say with the Prophet David, The Lord is on our side (or with us) we will not therefore fear what man can do unto us, Psa 118. 6. the Lord is ours, therefore we can lack nothing that is good for us: and if the Lord be thine, then his Power is thine to sustain thee under any cross, to redeem thee from trou­bles, to help thee in distress, to succour [Page 393] thee in the greatest needs, and to support thy weakness in the performance of any du­ties; his Wisedom too is thine, thou hast an interest in it, it is thy portion, so that if thou desirest to be instructed in the know­ledge of his word, to understand those hid­den mysteries which are contained in it, if thou openest thy mouth to him in prayer, he will open thine eyes that thou shalt see mi­rabilia leg is, the wondrous things of his Law, Psa. 119. 18. and be also wise unto salvation, 2 Tim. 3. 15. his Justice likewise is thine to vindicate thee when thou art injured, if thou committest thy cause unto him; and to clear thine innocency, when thou art falsly traduced by the malevolent, and to deliver thee out of the hands of the oppres­sour; so for his Truth and Holiness, the former is thine to make good his promises of blessings in this life, and of happiness in that to come, if by faith and full affiance thou dependest on him; so the latter, i. e. his Holiness is thine, to sanctifie thy corrupt nature, and to free thee as from the guilt, so from the power of sin.

This is the portion of all the Sons and servants of God, who is [...] a God al-sufficient, who can and will do for us more [Page 394] then either we desire or deserve, if we whol­ly rest and rely upon his goodness; Happy is the man who is in such a case, in so blessed a condition, as to have a close union and near communion with the great God of heaven, or (to speak in the Prophet Davids phrase) who hath the Lord for his God, Psa. 144. 15. whose alsufficiency they atterly deny who worship any other God, as did the Gentiles, who multiplied Deities, and sacrificed to more then one, such are Polutheists, who divide the glory of Gods excellencies a­mongst those petty Numens, even as they are no other then practical Athiests, and tru­ly worship none, who through infidelity question Gods alsufficiency; for if he be God he is [...] alsufficient, who by small or unlikely means can bring great or migh­ty things to pass; they doubt of his being al­sufficient, who walk in uneven waies, and use evil means to work out their ends, and to effect their enterprises, as did Ahaziah the son of Ahab, who in his sickness sent messengers to Baal-zebub the God of Ekron, to enquire of him whether he should recover of his disease, 2 Kin. 1. the like did the wicked Saul, 1 Sam. 28. when being in a great strait by the Philistines that warred a­gainst [Page 395] him, he went to a woman that had a familiar spirit to know of her whether he should conquer his enemies; but this did not holy David, he apprehended God to be all-suf­ficient, that having promised him the king­dom, would in his good time effect what he promised, wherefore he used no sinister or unlawfull means to accomplish his desires, but waited on God for the performance of his promise: he had many opportunities to have gotten the Crown, oftentimes Saul fell into his hands, so that he might have destroyed him, but he would not do it, he would not touch him to his hurt, because he was the Lords anointed, but committed him­self to the will of God, waiting his leisure, so after a few years his desires were accom­plished, his grand enemy flain, and he set­led in the Throne: of this holy frame of spirit was that good Jonathan the Son of Saul, 1 Sam. 14. 6. when he said [...] non est Jehovae impedimentum, there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few; so was Asa affected towards God, his heart was possessed with high thoughts of his all-sufficiency, 2 Chr. 14. 11. when Zerah the Ethiopian came against him with a thousand thousand men, and three hun­dred [Page 396] chariots, then (saies the Text) he cri­ed unto the Lord his Lord, and said, Lord, it is nothing with thee to help whether with many, or with them that have no power; help us, O Lord our God, for we rest on thee; the Lord heard his cry, and did help him; that huge host was overthrown in a moment; this Victory he obtained by his faith in the Lord of Hosts, who is all-sufficient.

The thinking of him not so to be, is the cause of all those indirect courses which men take to accomplish their worldly de­signes, as when they lie, and dissemble, swear and forswear, to get riches or go to conjurers and witches; such men put not their whole trust and assiance in God, but rather conceive that God cannot do what they desire by himself, or by his own pow­er, unless they help him with their crafty wiles and politick devices: when Peter de­nied Christ was it not out of fear? and from whence was that fear? was it not be­cause he did not apprehend God to be all­sufficient, a strong buckler of defence, so that without his lying and dissimulation, he could have rescued him out of the Jews bloudy hands, although he had own'd his Lord and Master Christ Jesus.

[Page 397] To conclude, if this comfortable Name of God were throughly digested by faith in our souls, if we did beleeve that he is [...] God almighty, and all-sufficient, we should walk before him, or as in his pre­sence (as Enoch, Abraham, and David did) with a perfect heart, we should fear him for his all-commanding power, and love him for his Goodness, of which there is in him a transcendent fullness: we should be chear­full in adversity, being content with God a­lone, and think our selves very rich and hap­py though we be poor, when we have God for our possession; we should then see an emptiness in the creatures here below, through whom God shines, so that whatso­ever excellency or beauty, whatsoever worth, vertue, or comfort is in them, it is an high degree in God who gave them their being and all things that attend it; the consideration of this would make us more to delight in God, and not dote on them which are but shadows in respect of that everlasting Sun, and all their excellen­cies or perfections but so many beams de­scending from the Father of Lights, or as so many blossomes of the [...], the first Goodness; so that if we separate [Page 398] these particularities from that universal good, and not admire God in them, or be not thankfull to God for them, all our af­fections spent on them would be unchaste, and their embraces adulterous; hence it is said in the Scriptures, that men (in regard of their blinde dotage on them) are said to go a whoring after vanities, or the creatures, which are vain and empty, if compared with their makers fullness.

Lastly, if God be all-sufficient, then let him be our onely stay and comfort; Let us trust in him alone, being perswaded of this truth, that he can help and support us, without the assistance of the creatures, but not all these without his blessing and provi­dence: ever look at God through the crea­tures, who subsist by him, who is a pre­sent help in trouble, and oft sends best suc­cess, when we are at the lowest or in a sad desperate condition, because we usually then relie upon him most, and go to him alone by prayer and supplication: and then may we expect great mercies when we have a great faith in the great God of Heaven, who delights in them, who by their affi­ance or whole dependency on his powerfull Goodness bring much glory to him: to this [Page 399] great all-sufficient and Almighty God, to the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, be given and a­scribed all honour, praise, dominion and pow­er, &c. Amen.

Most gracious God, who art all-sufficient in thy self, and from the inexhausted Treasury of thy goodness conveyest all things for the use of our bodies, and comfort of our souls; give us we pray thee largeness of spi­rits sutable to thy bounty towards us; O enlarge our hearts with love and thankfulness to thee, and let both display themselves in large ex­pressions of duty, that our thankfull lips may ever praise, and our holy lives glorifie thee; and above all Lord give us thine own self, in blessing all thy gifts unto us, and give us withall thy Son Christ Jesus, that he may be ours in the pardon of all our sins by the merit of his death and passion, and in the saving of our poor souls, and we his by serving him all our dayes in holiness and righteousness; Grant this, heavenly Father, for his sake who died and now sits in heaven at thy right hand, ma­king intercession for us. Amen,